458 • Identifying the Stateless in the United Kingdom 115 116 117 118 119 Robert Thomas and others, ‘Immigration and Access to Justice: A Critical Analysis of Recent Restrictions’ in Ellie Palmer and others (eds), Access to Justice: Beyond the Policies and Politics of Austerity (Hart Publishing 2016) 107. Guy Coffey, ‘The Credibility of Credibility Evidence at the Refugee Review Tribunal’ (2004) 15 International Journal of Refugee Law 377, 388–89. This was clear for Stateless Persons 6 and 11. Stateless Person 6 felt very stressed, had collapsed several times while in detention, and the immigration detention doctor wrote a report stating that, due to his mental health, he was unsuitable for detention. Stateless Person 11 was seeing a psychologist once a week in the detention centre. He reported having nightmares and being prescribed medication to be able to sleep. Both individuals were unsure whether the immigration officer had considered their medical condition. Interview with Stateless Person 6 (Immigration Detention Centre, 24 April 2016); Stateless Person 11 (n 40). For instance, this was the case for Stateless Person 1 (Middlesbrough, 24 May 2016) and Stateless Person 6 (n 116). Coffey (n 116) 390. James Souter, ‘A Culture of Disbelief or Denial? Critiquing Refugee Status Determination in the United Kingdom’ (2011) 1 Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration 48; Michael Kagan, ‘Believable Victims: Asylum Credibility and the Struggle for Objectivity’ (2015) 16 Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 123; Helen Baillot, Sharon Cowan, and Vanessa E Munro, ‘Reason to Disbelieve: Evaluating the Rape Claims of Women Seeking Asylum in the UK’ (2014) 10 International Journal of Law in Context 105; Interview with Solicitor 2 (Liverpool, 4 April 2016). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/32/3/440/6065591 by guest on 04 July 2025 The second problematic area concerns immigration officials’ predisposition to refuse applications.115 Contrary to HO guidance on assisting applicants with the presentation of evidence, it appears that attempts by immigration officials to explore inconsistencies or the reasons why documents were not obtained are limited. For instance, some applicants may not have been adequately represented; others may suffer from mental health problems that affect their ability to disclose relevant evidence.116 Some may have been detained and thus had limited access to documentary evidence.117 While immigration officials have discretion in assessing evidence, and have to prevent abuse of the system, the decisions examined and the testimonies heard point to a tendency to quickly assume that conflicting evidence or being undocumented diminishes a person’s credibility. Previous studies, as well as judicial decisions, have cautioned against this approach.118 Some have argued that there is ‘a culture of disbelief ’ within the HO. The literature explains that the HO has the propensity to doubt applicants’ credibility and, on that basis, to refuse their cases. This attitude is deliberate and based on a policy choice aimed at reducing the number of successful claims and discouraging prospective applicants.119 This aspect is well illustrated by the cases of Stateless Persons 1 and 6, which the HO refused, despite undisputed evidence of their lack of nationality. In particular, Stateless Person 1, originally from an area near the border of Nigeria with Cameroon, had provided a witness statement from an NGO volunteer affirming that, despite several attempts to obtain a passport, neither the Nigerian High Commission nor the Cameroonian embassy had agreed to provide a passport because they did not recognize him as a national. In its refusal letter, the HO minimized the applicant’s efforts and the complexity of his situation. In so doing, the HO unlawfully maintained that if Stateless Person 1 had provided correct information regarding his nationality, he