2016] The Protection of Stateless Persons in Australian Law 449 refugee criteria (s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act), and then (if found not to be a refugee) against the complementary protection grounds (s 36(2)(aa)), the final step (if the person is neither a refugee nor found to be in need of complementary protection) would be to assess the claim against the statelessness criteria. This preserves the primacy of Australia’s obligations under the Refugee Convention, and also ensures that a stateless person who fears persecution or other serious harm is not brought to the attention of the authorities of his or her government through investigations into his or her nationality.256 Such a process would provide a streamlined, efficient and workable means of assessing whether a person is stateless, and would not require the creation of any new institutional machinery. It would also build on the existing relevant expertise and knowledge of asylum decision-makers.257 B Access Any individual in a state’s territory should have access to a statelessness status determination procedure, regardless of whether he or she is ‘lawfully present’.258 Indeed, in light of the difficulties often experienced by stateless persons in obtaining appropriate entry documentation, such a requirement would be particularly burdensome.259 256 On the need to be cautious in alerting third states of persecution claims see UNHCR, Prato Conclusions, above n 136, 3 [12]. An applicant should not be precluded from electing to have his or her claim assessed solely on the statelessness ground, however. 257 UNHCR, Geneva Conclusions, above n 136, 3 [6]. See UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons, above n 20, 27–8 [62]–[67] for more detailed guidance. 258 Most countries with statelessness status determination procedures do not require applicants to be lawfully present in the country’s territory to lodge a claim, and there is nothing in the 1954 Convention that suggests lawful presence should be a precondition for doing so: Gyulai, ‘ENS Guidelines’, above n 136, 14. Furthermore, art 31(1) of the 1954 Convention provides that states may ‘not expel a stateless person lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.’ As art 31(2) stipulates, such expulsion is only permissible ‘in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law.’ See generally UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons, above n 20, 28 [68]–[70]. 259 UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons, above n 20, 28 [69]. Hungary imposed a lawful stay requirement until 2015, when the Constitutional Court declared it invalid because of inconsistency with international law: Hungarian Helsinki Committee, European Network on Statelessness, and Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, Joint Submission to the Human Rights Council, 25th Session of the Universal Periodic Review: Hungary, 21 September 2015, [27].