Identifying the Stateless in the United Kingdom • 455 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 HO, ‘Asylum Policy Instruction. V3.0’ (n 78) 14. ibid 15–16. ibid 21. ibid. See section 4.2 below. HO, ‘Asylum Policy Instruction. V3.0’ (n 78) 12. ibid 10. Immigration Rules, Appendix AR: administrative review 2016, HC 667, AR2.11. The High Court can accept challenges to statelessness if there are other grounds to believe that the Upper Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider – ie, challenging a statelessness decision with an unlawful detention claim. Email from Solicitor 1 to author (12 April 2017). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/32/3/440/6065591 by guest on 04 July 2025 In light of the problems that stateless persons may encounter in proving their case, HO guidance states that immigration officials must assist genuinely cooperating applicants who lack the necessary resources or knowledge with gathering the necessary evidence, whether by way of research or enquiry with foreign authorities.90 HO guidance also sets out detailed rules on gathering and assessing evidence, including the types of proof that should be submitted, such as written and oral testimonies of the applicant, replies of foreign authorities concerning an individual’s nationality, identity documents (for example, birth certificates, national identity cards, voter registration documentation), school and medical records, and expired travel documents.91 Where the national authorities do not provide evidence of their position, the HO guidance indicates that ‘[i]t is a matter for judgement in the individual case as to how long it is reasonable to wait for any response’.92 It adds that immigration officials must avoid making any automatic assumptions if a State fails to reply after being contacted. Moreover, in situations where a State normally responds to similar queries from the HO, the lack of a response may support a conclusion that the individual is not known to the State.93 The wording leaves open certain questions such as how long is a reasonable time to wait to receive the necessary evidence from overseas governments and what are the implications if a person appears not to be known to a State.94 Normally, where the information provided is insufficient, immigration officials interview the applicant. An individual will not be heard and his or her case may be refused if recent and reliable evidence (including the applicant’s own statements or fact findings of an immigration judge) has already ‘established that the applicant is not stateless or is clearly admissible to another country for purposes of permanent residence and where no evidence to the contrary has been provided’.95 This applies even if the findings were made as part of other immigration procedures. If a stateless person has previously been involved in an earlier, failed asylum claim, or if false documents have been used to stake the claim, such findings may negatively impact the credibility assessment in the SDP.96 As a result, stateless persons may not be able to rectify potentially incorrect information collected by the authorities. Where an application is refused, there is no right to appeal to the Immigration Tribunal. Individuals whose applications are rejected can apply for an internal administrative review for ‘casework errors’, carried out by a team within the HO.97 Once all administrative remedies have been exhausted, applicants can lodge an application for judicial review with the territorially competent Upper Tribunal.98 However, the Upper