Addressing statelessness in Europe’s refugee response ‘During the initial registration, they wanted to register us as Bangladeshis. We all said no, we are not from there. They kept us there for five or six hours while they checked some things on the computer. I think they searched for information about Myanmar on the internet. After eight hours, they agreed to register us as from Myanmar.’ (Rohingya from Myanmar interviewed in Greece) The Syrian Kurd interviewee attributed his precarious situation (subject to return to Turkey) to the failure of the authorities to recognise the implications of his stateless status. The bidoon interviewee noted that authorities had failed to understand that his Kuwaiti residence paper (stating he was born in Kuwait but labelled ‘Iraqi’ by the Kuwaiti authorities) was not evidence of Iraqi nationality, but rather of the systemic exclusion from Kuwaiti citizenship of the bidoon. Similarly, in the case of the Rohingya interviewee, the authorities were clearly unaware of a well-documented stateless population, exposing significant knowledge gaps in relation to the profiles of refugees who might be affected by statelessness on the part of those responsible for registering new arrivals. In Serbia, there was little interest on the part of refugees or the Serbian authorities to register people’s nationality details correctly, nor did interviewees perceive this to be an issue, as their intention was to remain only a few days in the country. This raised questions about the scope for identifying statelessness in what is in the current context understood purely as a transit country by most refugees intending to claim asylum elsewhere in Europe. In the Netherlands, however, significant challenges around identification and registration of statelessness were raised by interviewees: ‘[In one municipality] they recorded me as ‘nationality unknown’. So, when I received my permit …it also stated, 'nationality unknown'. I remained with this registration for a year. My lawyer started a procedure for me to change the registration. This was very difficult in the area where I stayed at the time. Then I moved to another municipality, and there we succeeded in changing my registration to ‘stateless’. So, some municipalities have knowledge on the matter, and others do not. Now I'm registered as stateless in [municipality] and my documents state 'stateless'.’ (Palestinian from Lebanon interviewed in the Netherlands) In this case, the interviewee had initially been registered as stateless in the municipality where she had claimed asylum. However, when she moved away and needed to register again in a new area, it become more problematic. Her story highlights an inconsistency in understanding and procedure relating to the identification and registration of statelessness at local level in different parts of the country. Another interviewee faced even more complex and frustrating challenges: During the first and second [asylum] procedure I was referred to as ‘Kuwaiti’, even though I had documents proving my statelessness and [the municipality] registered me as stateless. Every paper from the [immigration authorities] was different: sometimes it said ‘Kuwaiti’, sometimes ‘stateless’. In the third asylum procedure when I received the 6