442 Melbourne University Law Review [Vol 40:401 with regard to intervention requests.219 The example most relevant to stateless applicants is that ‘[c]ircumstances outside your control mean you cannot go back to your country of citizenship or to the country you usually live in.’220 Others that could be relevant include ‘[c]ircumstances that bring Australia’s obligations as a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child into consideration’ and ‘[c]ompassionate circumstances due to your age, health or your psychological condition that mean you would suffer irreparable harm and continuing hardship if you left Australia.’221 While it is important that such a discretion remains in place to provide the possibility for protection of those in need, it is widely understood that such a discretionary regime is not an adequate basis on which to implement international obligations, such as those in the 1954 Convention.222 Indeed, a 2015 report written for the UNHCR in relation to Canada noted that ‘it is difficult to foresee how Canada can meet its international human rights obligations towards stateless persons without establishing a determination procedure or mechanism that identifies them.’223 F Detention or Removal Pending Bridging Visa Where stateless persons are found not to qualify as refugees or beneficiaries of complementary protection, or do not succeed in obtaining Ministerial intervention, then prolonged indefinite detention, to which the person may have already been subjected throughout the application process, can become a 219 Department of Immigration and Border Protection (Cth), What Type of Documents Do I Need to Support My Request for Ministerial Intervention? <https://www.border.gov.au/Lega/Lega/Form/Immi-FAQs/what-are-unique-or-exceptionalcircumstances-what-type-of-documents-do-i-need-to-support-my-claims>. 220 Ibid. 221 Ibid. 222 Jane McAdam, ‘From Humanitarian Discretion to Complementary Protection — Reflections on the Emergence of Human Rights-Based Refugee Protection in Australia’ (2011) 18 Australian International Law Journal 53, 71: By its very nature, a discretionary power cannot fully comply with Australia’s protection obligations under international law. Although international treaties do not prescribe the form in which States are to give effect to their obligations, it is apparent that any provision that contains a discretionary decision-making power is at odds with Australia’s duty to respect the principle of non-refoulement under international human rights law. 223 Gregg Erauw, ‘Compatibility of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons with Canada’s Legal Framework and Its International Human Rights Obligations’ (Report, UNHCR, 2015) 13.