of Afghan refugees in Pakistan.25 It is also essential to acknowledge that the current provision does not recognize stateless individuals in Pakistan, and requires every person to be attributed a nationality. This raises concerns about the executive assigning nationality arbitrarily, potentially based on physical appearance or speech patterns, as has been reportedly done. Therefore, strict standards and safeguards must be established and followed meticulously to uphold every individual's right to nationality. Furthermore, Section 8(2) denying an individual the right to appeal against the determination of their nationality (or any order issued against them) is a violation of due process guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice. The right to appeal is especially crucial for foreigners because they have a lot more at stake, including their life and liberty. Due process requires the authority to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity for a hearing to the individual whose rights or interests may be affected. The Supreme Court has also emphasized the importance of this principle, stating that due process requires that a person have the right to receive notice of any proceedings that may impact their rights and must be given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves.26 Burden of proof Section 9 of the Foreigners Act places the burden of proving whether a person is or is not a foreigner on the individual whose nationality is in question. This poses significant challenges for individuals facing any allegations on account of being a foreigner, especially refugees, stateless persons etc. in proving their nationality or lack thereof. The lack of documentation available to these groups is a key hurdle in this regard. The lack of adequate documentary evidence is a particularly prevalent problem in proving nationality (as well as claiming 25 P. W. Hogg and A. A. Bushell. (2007). Constitutional law of Canada. Carswell. New Jubilee Insurance Company v. National Bank of Pakistan [2009] PLD 1126 (Supreme Court). 26 15