suffered or fears he would suffer persecution if he returned’.64 Further, UNHCR’s Statelessness Handbook provides that ‘habitual residence’ is to be understood as ‘stable, factual residence’ which includes ‘stateless persons who have been granted permanent residence, and also applies to individuals without a residence permit who are settled in a country, having been there for a number of years, who have an expectation of ongoing residence there’.65 It is noted that a definition of the concept of ‘country of former habitual residence’ is not provided in the EU Qualification Directive66 or International Protection Act 2015. 3.2.2.2 Dual country of habitual residence The issue of identifying the appropriate country of habitual residence arose in the High Court case of B.D. (Bhutan and Nepal)67 which concerned an asylum seeker born in Bhutan of Nepali ethnicity who fled to Nepal to escape persecution in Bhutan. The IPAT determined that the applicant was stateless with Nepal identified as his country of habitual residence. The asylum seeker claimed that he was not stateless but was Bhutanese and that that country should be identified as the reference country of nationality for the purposes of his international protection claim. They also submitted that the persecutory deprivation of his nationality should be disregarded for the purposes of identifying the reference country for the asylum procedure among other matters. UNHCR submitted an amicus curiae intervention to assist the court in interpreting the country of habitual residence and, in particular, formulated the correct approach to be taken when there is more than one country of habitual residence.68 UNHCR submitted that when a state arbitrarily deprives a person of his or her nationality and the person has no other nationality, the person should be regarded as stateless within the meaning of the 1951 Convention.69 The unlawfulness of the act of deprivation of nationality does not negate the result of statelessness. When a stateless person has more than one country of former habitual residence, this person should only have to meet the refugee criteria of a wellfounded fear of persecution in relation to one of those countries. When assessing if that stateless person is a refugee, it is also necessary to determine whether the person is excluded from refugee status pursuant to Article 1E.70 The High Court held that the applicant was deprived of Bhutanese nationality by Bhutanese law and thus was regarded as stateless. It held that only Nepal was the country of former habitual residence and thus the test for where there are multiple countries of habitual residence was held not to arise in the case. The Tribunal’s decision was upheld by the court. 3.2.2.3 Identifying the country of habitual residence for stateless persons – the practice This recent response to a parliamentary question by Minister for Justice Helen McEntee, outlines the approach of the IPO to stateless applicants: 20 64 UN Economic and Social Council, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Statelessness and Related Problems, New York, 16 January to 16 February 1950, available at: https://bit.ly/3FkwGy2; See also UNHCR, Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, December 2011, HCR/1P/4/ENG/REV. 3, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/4f33c8d92.html Para 103. 65 UNHCR Statelessness Handbook, para 139. 66 European Union: Council of the European Union, Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast), 20 December 2011, OJ L. 337/9-337/26; 20.12.2011, 2011/95/EU, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/4f197df02.html 67 B.D. (Bhutan and Nepal) -v- The Minister for Justice and Equality & ors, [2018] IEHC 461, Ireland: High Court, 17 July 2018, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,IRL_HC,5bb244524.html 68 UNHCR, Amicus curiae of UNHCR in the case of B.D.(Bhutan and Nepal) -v- The Minister for Justice and Equality & ors, 25 June 2018, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/5bb23fdb4.html 69 In this regard UNHCR’s Statelessness Handbook paragraph 56 states that ‘Bestowal, refusal, or withdrawal of nationality in contravention of international obligations must not be condoned. The illegality on the international level, however, is generally irrelevant for the purposes of Article 1(1)[1954 Convention]. The alternative would mean that an individual who has been stripped of his or her nationality in a manner inconsistent with international law would nevertheless be considered a ‘national’ for the purposes of Article 1(1); a situation at variance with the object and purpose of the 1954 Convention.’ 70 For further information on the use of Article 1E of the 1951 Refugee Convention see UNHCR, UNHCR Note on the Interpretation of Article 1E of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, March 2009, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/49c3a3d12.html Mapping Statelessness in Ireland