Identifying the Stateless in the United Kingdom • 461 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Stateless Person 1 (n 117). All the stateless interviewees in the study confirmed this. Singer (n 19) 15; Stephen Shaw, Review into the Welfare in Detention of Vulnerable Persons (Cm 9186, HO 2016) 133. While detention immigration centres do have computers with internet access in their libraries, many sites are blocked and unavailable. Singer (n 19) 15; Shaw (n 133) 133. Interview with Stateless Person 3 (London, 2 May 2016); Stateless Person 6 (n 116). Asylum Aid, ‘The UK’s Approach to Statelessness: Need for Fair and Timely Decisions’, Policy Briefing (September 2016) 3–4; Bianchini (n 8); Bezzano and Carter (n 104) 25. Solicitor 1 (n 120); Solicitor 3 (n 126). Cappelletti and Garth (n 58) 181–82. Although the internal review is carried out by a HO team in a different location and management chain from the officials who made the original immigration decision, the independence of the reviewers has been questioned. Bianchini (n 5) 152. On internal reviews in general, and the difficulty in guaranteeing independence from the primary decision maker, see Denis J Galligan, Due Process and Fair Procedures: A Study of Administrative Procedures (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2004) 132. Alexandra Poupotsi, ‘Stateless Persons in Detention: Trapped by Law?’ (MA thesis, Tilburg University 2017) 4, 31. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/32/3/440/6065591 by guest on 04 July 2025 ‘many details of family members and places of former residence and ask[ing] the same information in a repetitive and confusing manner’.131 Lack of English language skills and formal education, and inability to comprehend the legal system, were common problems in making an application without the help of a solicitor.132 Moreover, the recent requirement to complete the application form online raises particular problems for unrepresented detainees, since not all are computer literate and access to computers at immigration centres is limited.133 Lack of sufficient access to the internet and other forms of communication has been raised in other studies as a serious obstacle to lodging and preparing cases.134 As far as the timeliness of the proceedings was concerned, many interviewees reported long waiting times for a decision, which made them less willing to pursue their cases.135 Most applications take more than a year, some take more than two years.136 The waiting time becomes even longer when judicial review is sought for refusals. In addition, individuals may have tried to seek asylum before, and their failed applications add to the delay, due to having to go through one more layer of procedures.137 These delays are a barrier, especially for represented persons who may worry about the legal fees involved. Meanwhile, unrepresented persons can become so frustrated that they relinquish their rights.138 When a statelessness application is refused, the main issues of fairness appear to be: (1) the lack of independence of the HO team in charge of the internal review;139 (2) inability to lodge an application for judicial review, especially if the person is in immigration detention; and (3) difficulties in pursuing cases without legal representation due to the complexity of the legal issues and procedures involved, and a lack of knowledge of the system and language (as will be discussed further in section 5.3). In conclusion, there are serious problems concerning the fairness and effectiveness of the SDP. Status determination is fundamental to the protection of stateless persons, particularly in cases where they have nowhere else to go and would otherwise be in legal limbo.140 Persons without a determined nationality status are particularly vulnerable to