3.3.2.3 ACCESS TO COURTS Administrative decisions made by UDI on asylum, or other immigration-related claims within its competence, are appealable to UNE.136 UNE’s decisions, in turn, can be brought before the regular judicial system where, inter alia, the validity of the administrative decision can be tested.137 However, as there exists no formal statelessness determination procedure in Norway and no formally recognized status of stateless with rights attached to that status, there is no mechanism by which persons who have been wrongly identified as nationals of a given country can appeal such a decision to a court of law, or to an independent, quasi-judicial body like UNE. Rejected asylum-seekers, including those who are stateless, can apply for voluntary return programs138 or face the possibility of forced deportation. In practice, it may not be possible to implement the deportation decision due to an individual’s statelessness. Even in such cases, stateless persons are nonetheless obliged to leave Norway, or face the risk of being subjected to criminal prosecution if they fail to do so, as there is no provision under Norwegian law that affords stateless persons a residence permit on the ground of statelessness. (However, see Chapter 3.4.2.5. for an overview of situations in which persons for whom there are practical obstacles to return can be granted a residence permit.) 3.3.3 Conclusions There exists no statelessness determination procedure in Norway leading to the formal grant of the status of stateless. Likewise, under current Norwegian law, a person’s statelessness cannot serve as the sole basis for the protections guaranteed by the 1954 Convention. The only evaluations of a person’s statelessness that exist today are the assessments done by UDI, NR, and NPIS in the course of their registration of a person during immigration procedures, including the residence permit application process. Given that the definition of a stateless person set forth in Article 1 of the 1954 Convention has not been expressly incorporated into national legislation or guidelines, and because the procedures employed by authorities that register a person’s identity have not been harmonized, there may be discrepancies in the registration of a person as stateless. The standard of proof governing UDI’s assessments of nationality or statelessness is the preponderance of evidence. However, it is unclear precise what evidentiary weight different forms of evidence are given. It was also not possible to ascertain whether the NR and NIPS apply the burden and standard of proof in the same manner as the UDI, when registering a person as stateless. In view of the above, UNHCR recommends that the definition of a stateless person set forth in Article 1 of the 1954 Convention be expressly incorporate into national law, that the authorities that register persons as stateless in the course of establishing their identity for purposes of immigration procedures develop clear and harmonized guidelines for the evaluation of nationality to ensure accuracy and consistency in registration. In this regard, it is specifically recommended that the authorities adopt the standard of proof of “to a reasonable degree,” in recognition of the difficulties inherent to statelessness and that fact that statelessness, by its very nature, cannot ordinarily be proved. 136 In accordance with Article 76(1) of the Immigration Act. 137 Ibid, Article 79 (3). See also Domstol Administrasjonen: Courts of Norway, available at: http://goo.gl/tkgmik. See, e.g., Oslo District Court: A vs. the State (Immigration Appeals Board) in case no. TOSLO-2006-160098 and Oslo District Court: Amjad Adel Mohamed Kaddoura vs. The State (Immigration Appeals Board) in case no. TOSLO-09-030719TVI-OTIR/08. 138 IOM, Information on “Voluntary Assisted Return Programs,” available at: http://www.iom.no/index.php/en/varp/voluntary-return. UNHCR STOCKHOLM, OCTOBER 2015 33