This administrative practice shows the need to have consistency and clarity regarding the burden and standards of proof in establishing statelessness and the special situation faced by such persons, who may receive such requests repeatedly when trying to renew permission to remain. There appears to be no clarity or established policy and practice on what other evidence is required to demonstrate an individual’s status as stateless. Likewise, it is not clear what standard of proof must be met. For example, is there any consideration of the citizenship laws and practice in relevant countries? Additionally, consular authorities or Embassies are under no obligation to issue formal correspondence to non-nationals of their country and, therefore, may not cooperate in such a process. Of particular concern was another correspondence from ISD which indicated that an individual was given permission ‘for one year to enable you to obtain a valid passport. No future renewals will be considered without a valid passport in your name.”86 The Department of Justice in the context of permission to remain considerations at the repatriation stage of the immigration process, has indicated that when an individual claims to be stateless, the central issue is the degree to which the immigration service requires documentary evidence supporting that assertion. The standard used is one of ‘reasonable efforts’ which would include the individual concerned presenting documentary evidence of their formal interactions with the consular authorities of their country of origin/country of former habitual residence, including any responses received.87 The result of their efforts will not lead to the person being recorded as ‘stateless’ with the Irish authorities and they are more likely to be recorded with respect to their former country of habitual residence. The Department of Justice informed UNHCR that such requests would not need to be repeated on an annual basis if the person presented with sufficient documentary evidence of their efforts to obtain a passport, but each case would be examined on its own merits.88 As regards the individual cases recorded as stateless by the authorities in an immigration procedure in March and May 2014 as outlined in chapter 3.2.1 above, such a designation would have resulted from the individual self-reporting as statelessness and not on account of any in-depth examination of their personal circumstances or situation by the authorities, so less weight is placed on that designation by Department of Justice officials.89 The approach outlined above does not appear to be fully in accordance with the guidance set out in UNHCR’s Statelessness Handbook which notes that “[g]iven the nature of statelessness, applicants for statelessness status are often unable to substantiate the claim with much, if any, documentary evidence. Statelessness determination authorities need to take this into account, where appropriate giving sympathetic consideration to testimonial explanations regarding the absence of certain kinds of evidence.” The Handbook also notes that further flexibility is warranted where it is difficult for individuals to obtain documents originating from a foreign authority properly notarized.90 While UNHCR recognises that contact with a foreign authority may be of assistance to a statelessness determination, it is also cognisant of the fact that flexibility may be necessary as practices may vary with some foreign authorities accepting enquires from another state while others may only respond to individuals or fail to respond overall.91 Practical considerations may also need to be taken into account as regards persons contacting Embassies for e.g. where in-person presence is required and the individual needs to travel to another country to engage such Embassies but may not have appropriate travel documentation. Such requests to Embassies are also not necessary in cases where there is otherwise adequate proof. As regards the standard of proof, UNHCR advises that the same standard of proof as set out in refugee status determination is utilized, namely establishing to a ‘reasonable degree’ that an individual is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law.92 86 Correspondence shared by Catherine Cosgrave, Immigrant Council of Ireland. 87 Correspondence with the Assistant Principal, Repatriation Division, ISD, December 2019. 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid. 90 UNHCR Statelessness Handbook, fn. 51, pg. 34. 91 UNHCR Statelessness Handbook, paras 96-99. 92 UNHCR Statelessness Handbook, para 91 and UNHCR, Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the case of AS (Guinea) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department before the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) , 20 February 2018, C5/2016/3473/A, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/5a9d54884.html. UNHCR 25