Identifying the Stateless in the United Kingdom • 457 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 Interview with Nasser Al-Anezy, Director of the Kuwait Community Association (London, 2 May 2016); Interview with Barrister (London, 11 March 2016). For instance, the UK Country Guidance on Kuwait is incorrect as it distinguishes between documented Bidoons – registered with the ‘Bidoon Committee’ and issued with ‘security cards’ or ‘green cards’, which allows some rights, such as health care, and access to employment – and undocumented Bidoons – not ­registered, with no rights, and at risk of persecution. This distinction is problematic as it excludes many Kuwaiti Bidoons who hold a security card but face harm. Moreover, the cards issued by the government do not grant rights equal to those of nationals. Finally, it opens the door to abuse of the system as it encourages non-Bidoons to adopt the ‘non-documented Kuwaiti Bidoon’ ­narrative in order to obtain lawful status. HO, UK Visas and Immigration, ‘Country Information and Guidance Kuwait: Bidoons. Version 2.0’ ( July 2016); Nasser Al-Anezy and Katia Bianchini, ‘Problems Faced by the Bidoons in the UK’ (ENS, 21 July 2016) <https://www.statelessness.eu/ blog/problems-faced-bidoons-uk> accessed 8 March 2020. ‘Expert evidence’ is advice from experts on country conditions and nationality legislation of the country of origin. Lawyers’ ‘lack of awareness’ refers to a lack of knowledge of and experience in dealing with the legal provisions on statelessness. See further section 5.3 below. This was the case for Stateless Person 5 (Middlesbrough, 23 May 2016), Stateless Person 7 (Reading, 20 March 2016), and Stateless Person 8 (Middlesbrough, 23 May 2016). van Waas (n 2) 23–27. ibid 28. ibid 423–32. Equal Rights Trust (n 107) 65. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/32/3/440/6065591 by guest on 04 July 2025 assessment of State practice.108 Further, expert evidence was not presented to assist in any of the interviewees’ cases, whether due to the limitations of legal aid, or a lack of awareness on statelessness matters among the lawyers.109 Situations may be complicated where an applicant has, in the past, used different identities to enter the country or gain employment. The HO often labels such cases as cases of ‘disputed nationality’. In three of the cases under review, the evidence presented was deemed tentative owing to numerous issues, resulting in a substantial degree of uncertainty concerning some facts of the claims (that is, the country of birth, applicable nationality laws, and relevant State practice) and their consequent refusal.110 However, the concept of disputed nationality in the context of statelessness assessment is not legally significant.111 As van Waas has pointed out, the situation of a person whose nationality is disputed or doubtful is a matter of identification of statelessness,112 which requires the adoption of clear rules. Such rules should address, for instance, when embassies’ long delays in assisting someone who has requested documentation amount to a denial of recognition of nationality, even in the absence of an answer; how many times a person should reasonably be requested to contact his or her own embassy; and how long individuals can remain without status.113 As sections 5.2 and 5.5 will show, in the absence of well-defined provisions, situations of disputed or undetermined nationality become particularly problematic when the authorities detain a person and engage in attempts to remove them.114 Removal attempts can be very time-consuming and may be pursued on the assumption of a country of nationality. Most of the time, they do not reflect a comprehensive understanding of nationality laws and country conditions.