Identifying the Stateless in the United Kingdom • 465 161 162 163 164 165 Interview with Stateless Person 5 (n 110); Stateless Person 1 (n 117); Stateless Person 6 (n 116); Stateless Person 7 (n 110); Stateless Person 8 (n 110); Stateless Person 9 (Plymouth, 13 July 2016); Stateless Person 10 (Huddersfield, 13 May 2016); Stateless Person 11 (n 40). UNHCR, ‘Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers and Alternative to Detention’ (2012) Guideline 4, para 18; UNHCR, ‘Stateless Persons in Immigration Detention: A Tool for Their Identification and Enhanced Protection’ (2017) 10; ENS (n 15) 8. Although several human rights law provisions that deal with deprivation of liberty use the term ‘arbitrariness’, there is no clear definition of what it means. Different supervisory bodies provide different definitions. Stephen Phillips, ‘Establishing Arbitrariness’ (2013) 44 Forced Migration Review 9. A Joint Enquiry by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees & the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration (All Party Group), ‘The Report of the Inquiry into the Use of Immigration Detention in the United Kingdom’ (House of Commons 2015) 17; Her Majesty’s (HM) Inspectorate of Prisons and Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, ‘The Effectiveness and Impact of Immigration Detention Casework’ (2012) 8; Shaw (n 133) 183–84. HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, Annual Report 2018–19 (HC 2469, House of Commons, 9 July 2019) 65; William, ‘My Story: Indefinite Detention in the UK’ (2013) 44 Forced Migration Review 27. Stateless Person 1 (n 117); Stateless Person 4 (Leeds, 22 May 2016); Stateless Person 5 (n 110); Stateless Person 7 (n 110); Stateless Person 8 (n 110); Stateless Person 9 (n 161); Stateless Person 11 (n 40). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/32/3/440/6065591 by guest on 04 July 2025 remove them affected their credibility. Whereas the inability to return does not automatically mean that a person is stateless, immigration officials do not usually question nationality laws and their application. This results in a failure to understand a situation that is typical for many stateless persons. The underlying causes of non-removability should receive greater attention, as they can flag the condition of statelessness. Whereas the ‘hidden nature’ of statelessness and lack of awareness on the part of immigration officials can explain the failure to identify the protection needs of stateless persons, some of the interviewees’ vulnerabilities, including as victims of torture or as people suffering post-traumatic stress disorder, were not taken into account, despite evidence being provided to support such claims and the obligation to assess them.161 In these cases, the use of immigration detention clearly falls short of the legal standards requiring it to serve a legitimate purpose, to be proportionate, and necessary. Thus, immigration detention becomes arbitrary – unlawful, inappropriate, unjust, and unpredictable.162 The testimonies collected are in line with studies that uncover the release of one-third – up to nearly half – of all detainees due to the impossibility of removal.163 Whereas previous research does not distinguish between stateless persons and irregular migrants, it corroborates the insight that many removals cannot be carried out for a variety of reasons and circumstances, and that the use of immigration detention is marked by a severe lack of attention directed towards those individual reasons and circumstances.164 Regarding the effectiveness and fairness of review mechanisms, the research participants stressed their lack of confidence in bail hearings as an opportunity to exercise their rights. The majority questioned their ability to satisfy the legal requirements for their release because these requirements did not respond to their particular circumstances.165 Solicitors underlined the difficulty of meeting the accommodation