A/HRC/WGAD/2017/71 or deported from Australia; or (b) granted a visa. In addition, section 196 (3) specifically provides that “even a court” cannot release an unlawful non-citizen from detention, unless the person has been granted a visa. 13. However, according to the source, it is impossible for Mr. Imasi, as a stateless person, to be removed or deported from Australia. In addition, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has consistently refused to grant him a bridging visa or community detention placement, and he has not been offered the opportunity to apply for a protection visa. 14. The source indicates that, following his arrival in Australia on 28 January 2010, Mr. Imasi lodged an application for a protection visa on 2 February 2010, which was subsequently withdrawn on 8 April 2010. He lodged another application for a protection visa on 11 June 2010, which was rejected by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 25 August 2010. The Minister’s decision was subsequently confirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 20 September 2010. Mr. Imasi lodged another application for a protection visa, based on new legislative provisions, on 5 November 2013, which was rejected by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 26 March 2014. That decision was subsequently confirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 19 May 2014. 15. According to the source, Mr. Imasi subsequently applied to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for judicial review of the decision of 19 May 2014 of the Refugee Review Tribunal. His application was dismissed on 17 October 2014. He then appealed that decision to the Full Federal Court of Australia for review, and his appeal was dismissed on 13 March 2015. In early 2015, Mr. Imasi lodged an application with the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection for an International Treaties Obligation Assessment, which was pending at the time of the submission by the source. Category II 16. The source considers that Mr. Imasi has been deprived of liberty as a result of the exercise of his rights guaranteed by article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whereby everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. The source thus submits that Mr. Imasi’s detention constitutes arbitrary deprivation of his liberty, falling within category II of the arbitrary deprivation categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it. Category III 17. The source also submits that the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial have not been observed in relation to Mr. Imasi’s detention, specifically those rights protected under articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The source notes that the Human Rights Committee, in its general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, requires that detention must be justified as reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the light of the circumstances and reassessed as it extends in time. 18. According to the source, one of the main reasons that Mr. Imasi remains in detention is the inability of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to establish his identity. Given Mr. Imasi’s history, including the absence of documentation for or registration of his birth, being raised in a refugee camp, then an orphanage and on the streets of Europe, it is almost impossible for him to have received any formal identification documents or retained them. The source reports that, apart from issues relating to the establishment of his identity, Mr. Imasi has not been notified of any adverse security assessment. According to the source, the Minister is, in effect, keeping Mr. Imasi detained while pursuing an impossible goal. 19. The source submits that, in the light of those circumstances and the time that has elapsed, it cannot be said that Mr. Imasi’s current detention is reasonable, necessary (given that all avenues to establish a formal identity for him that have been undertaken to date have failed) and proportionate. In that respect, the source refers to the case of A. v. Australia, in 3