eyes of the Danish police. The authorities had said they suspected they were of Turkish origin, but a language test showed they spoke Arabic fluently. The Danish Immigration Service reported that the family was granted a residence permit in the summer 2012 as “un-returnable”, and they were re-registered as stateless.120 The other case mentioned in the publication concerned a stateless Bidoon from Kuwait.121 Kuwait does not recognize the Bidoon as citizens (bidoon is short for Bidoon Jinsiya which means “without nationality” in Arabic), and the Bidoon do not have access to employment or healthcare. The stateless Bidoon in this particular case, having left his wife and five children in Kuwait, went to Denmark to look for employment. He reportedly acquired a forged Iraqi ID card in 2002, arguably because other asylum-seekers had told him that this would improve his chances of being granted asylum in Denmark. Quickly after, however, he regretted the forgery and told the Danish police the truth about the forged card and his situation as a stateless Bidoon. In 2004, he received the final refusal of his application for asylum. The Danish authorities maintained that he was from Iraq and attempted to return him. In 2009, the Iraqi authorities declared that his identity card was false and refused to admit him. Later, however, the Iraqi authorities showed some willingness to reopen the case. The person was imprisoned in a Danish asylum prison for seven months, on grounds that his physical presence was necessarily in the event of an expulsion order. The Danish embassy in Kuwait had received no reply from the Kuwaiti authorities, and thus presumed that Kuwait would not readmit him. The person claimed that if he had received legal counsel from the start, he would not have lied about his identity, and he would probably have had a greater chance being granted a residence permit in Denmark. The Danish Immigration Service informed the DIHR late 2012 that the person were to be granted a residence permit as “un-returnable” and that he would be re-registered as stateless.122 In 2012, the Danish Immigration Service and the Danish Refugee Council (DRC) concluded an agreement on counseling asylum-seekers.123 This project encompassed asylum-seekers at all phases of the asylum procedure. Under the agreement, the DRC counseled rejected asylum-seekers who had remained in Denmark for many years.124 The importance of their assistance in the return efforts was emphasized. The DRC explained during an interview in 2012 that, in their opinion since 2011, there had been more awareness of statelessness among all Danish stakeholders. Still, they found that stateless persons in a return position faced problems, and persons who were “unreturnable” appeared to be a low priority for the Danish Immigration Service. According to the Aliens Act, the national police must consider questions on return options 18 months after an application for asylum has been rejected. However, the decision of the Danish Immigration Service to grant a residence permit based on the fact that a person is unreturnable, pursuant to Section 9c(2) of the Aliens Act, could take an extra six months. One of the requirements for such a grant is that the ‘return must be considered futile according to the information available at the time’ (Section 9c(2)(iii)). When that is not the case, another 18 months must pass before a new application for a residence permit on grounds that someone is unreturnable can be reconsidered. In this way, several 18-month periods can pass. In the opinion of the DRC, a person’s statelessness could be the occasion for exempting him or her from the 18-month requirement, since an assessment of the return possibilities would often be possible from the very beginning, given the likelihood that a stateless person is unreturnable. Obstacles to return are discussed by the national police in their annual reports.125 In these reports, emphasis is put on the receiving countries’ willingness to receive rejected asylum-seekers. They do not deal with the standard of treatment afforded by these countries to, among others, stateless persons. 38 120 According to an email to DIHR dated 28 November 2012. 121 RW, Asylum Camp Limbo, A report about obstacles to deportation, 2011. p. 34. 122 Information given by the Danish Immigration Service to DIHR in an email dated 28 November 2012. 123 Interview with Danish Immigration Service. 124 Information meetings will be held at the accommodation centers. The aim was that all centers have video equipment with the possibility of video conferences with the Danish Refugee Council in 2012. In addition, the Danish Red Cross, which is responsible for accommodation centers, has been contacted with a view to make it possible to refer rejected asylum-seekers to the Danish Refugee Council for further information. 125 The annual reports by the NUC, ‘Status på arbejdet med udsendelse af afviste asylansøgere’, are available at: https://bit.ly/2CXMiuW. Mapping Statelessness in Denmark