428 Melbourne University Law Review [Vol 40:401 protection claims are assessed.’135 However, PAM3 overlooks the extensive guidance that now exists internationally on both the substantive and procedural aspects of determining whether or not a person is stateless.136 First, PAM3 outlines a list of possible interview questions to assist in assessing statelessness.137 However, they do not provide detail as to who bears the so-called onus of proof, the required standard of proof, or whether some information may be accorded greater weight than other information.138 Many individuals will face significant challenges in demonstrating that they are stateless precisely because of their limited access to evidence and documentation. For this reason, applicants ‘should not bear sole responsibility for establishing the relevant facts.’139 Rather, the burden should be shared by the applicant and the decision-making authority. That authority must identify which authorities in the relevant reference country are competent to establish nationality, based on the law and practice of those countries.140 Where an individual can show, on the basis of all reasonably available evidence, that he or she is not a national of a country with which he or she has a relevant 135 Department of Immigration and Border Protection (Cth), PAM3, above n 93, 127 [82]. The PAM3 continues: This is because establishing whether an applicant is stateless as claimed is relevant to the determination of their identity, country of reference and circumstances which may be key factors in the assessment (for the purposes of s 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Act) of whether they are a person to whom Australia has protection obligations. 136 See, eg, UNHCR, Expert Meeting: The Concept of Stateless Persons under International Law — Summary Conclusions (Prato, 28 May 2010) <http://www.unhcr.org/4cb2fe326.pdf> (‘Prato Conclusions’); UNHCR, Expert Meeting: Statelessness Determination Procedures and the Status of Stateless Persons — Summary Conclusions (Geneva, 6–7 December 2010) <http://www.unhcr.org/protection/statelessness/4d919a436/expert-meeting-statelessnessdetermination-procedures-status-stateless.html> (‘Geneva Conclusions’); UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons, above n 20; Gábor Gyulai, ‘Statelessness Determination and the Protection Status of Stateless Persons: A Summary Guide of Good Practices and Factors to Consider when Designing National Determination and Protection Mechanisms’ (Guidelines, European Network on Statelessness, 2013). 137 Department of Immigration and Border Protection (Cth), PAM3, above n 93, 128 [84.2]. 138 Note that concepts such as ‘onus’ or ‘standard’ of proof are generally inappropriate in the refugee context, since they are usually shared: see QAAH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 145 FCR 363, 375 [40], 376–7 [46], 383 [69] (Wilcox J). But see s 5AAA of the Migration Act, introduced in 2015. 139 UNHCR, Geneva Conclusions, above n 136, 4 [13]. The Australian government has recognised this in Onshore Protection Consultative Group, ‘Statelessness: Extract of Issues Paper’, above n 14. For comparative state practice see Batchelor, ‘The 1954 Convention’, above n 23, 40–2. 140 UNHCR, Prato Conclusions, above n 136, 3 [13]. See generally UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons, above n 20, 13–14 [27]–[29].