RC v Sweden.198 The discriminatory denial by a State of rights arising out of nationality, such as the deprivation of identity documents and the refusal to re-document a national, has been found to be successful ground for refugee status in a number of domestic cases. How and why did such cases succeed where others fail? I shall take the two possible scenarios in turn and discuss them in the light of domestic case law. 4.1. The right to return and secure entry in the country of former habitual residence, and persecution This section examines the predicament of a stateless person who is unable to return to his or her country of habitual residence due to practical obstacles (e.g., lack of proper ID or travel documents) and/or discriminatory treatment by the State of former habitual residence based on (lack of) nationality. The issue of whether Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention should be read literally in the case of stateless persons or whether this provision must be interpreted in a purposive way, has been a matter of controversy in several jurisdictions (i.e., the exact meaning of the semicolon in Article 1A(2)). This issue boils down to asking the question: Does the inability to return to one’s country of habitual residence, per se, amount to persecution under the Refugee Convention? All the jurisdictions that have considered the issue have answered ‘no’ to this question. The UKBA’s Asylum Policy Instructions provide that ‘issues of statelessness and whether or not an individual is returnable should not affect the decision maker’s decision on whether to grant asylum, as they are not relevant factors in the refugee determination process’.199 What matters is whether the stateless person can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on the five grounds listed in Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention. Clarke LJ explains: ‘It is, I think, clear that the purpose of the 1951 Convention was not to afford general protection to stateless persons’.200 Refugee status is meant to offer protection against persecution to persons with or without a nationality, whereas the 1954 Stateless Status Convention exists to protect persons without a formal nationality. The leading authority on the question of whether an individual’s inability to return to their country of former habitual residence can found a claim for refugee status in the UK is RC v Sweden, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 9 March 2010, 3 rd section. However, the cumulative approach to risk assessment has not been applied consistently by the Court, see FH v Sweden, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 29 January 2009, 3 rd section. 199 UKBA, Asylum Policy Instructions, Considering Asylum Claims and Assessing Credibility, p.22. Available at http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/asylumprocessguidance/consideringa nddecidingtheclaim/guidance/considering-protection-.pdf?view=Binary, section 5.4 [last accessed on 18 January 2013] 200 Revenko v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 50; [2001] Q.B. 628-H. 198 36