4.3.4 Different members within the same stateless family and/or community are subjected to different visas and conditions Factors such as mode of arrival in Australia, date of arrival, whether a child was born while his or her parents were in immigration detention, and the timing of visa grants can result in family members having different visa statuses, leading to relationship fragmentation and distress. This highlights the human cost of policy inconsistency, where families are separated and distinguished from one another by bureaucratic boundaries, resulting in members of the same family experiencing inconsistent and unequal access to rights. Parents interviewed for this study experience the disparity of legal statuses imposed on stateless family units firsthand (see, for example, the story of Yasmin* in the Appendix to this Report: Stories of Statelessness in Australia). In one case, although a stateless couple’s children enjoy Australian citizenship (by virtue of being born in Australia), the mother and father remain prohibited from applying for any sort of visa whatsoever, by virtue of the fact they were briefly detained in Nauru many years ago. The family have been living in Australia consistently for more than a decade. The parents were initially placed under community detention orders and have since been living on revolving six-month Bridging Visas. The mother would love to study but is prohibited from doing so. The father works as an uber driver 6 days a week—he would like to seek different employment but has struggled to find employers willing to take him on for the limited length of his six-month visa. “Even though our children are Australian citizens, the government won’t let my husband and I apply for a permanent visa and keeps telling us we need to leave ... But how can we do this? My daughter says to me, “I was born here. I grew up here, I like it here. I don’t want to leave. This is a safe country.” — Yasmin* People like Yasmin also experience limited rights and entitlements, including on their freedom of movement. While the minors in the family unit are theoretically free to travel within Australia, the parents are not, meaning the whole family suffers. This was identified in interviews as problematic in instances where extended family units might live in different states, or children are offered opportunities to travel for sporting events but their parents are unable to accompany them. “We needed to request permission for the parents to travel which the Department denied. So, we had a situation where we had two Australian citizen children that were allowed to travel but effectively unable to—because their parents weren’t granted the right to travel... So, you just have these really unforeseen consequences (where) the kids have certain rights … but they (the Department) need to extend that to the whole family unit.” The existing legal framework for stateless children also creates disparities between children born in Australia and those who were not (see, for example, the story of Hassan* in the Appendix to this Report: Stories of Statelessness in Australia). While those born in Australia may be able to claim Australian citizenship, older siblings born in the parent’s country of origin, or en route to Australia are left without a pathway to permanency in Australia by virtue of being detained offshore (however briefly) after arrival. This is particularly problematic as the older children approach the end of high school, as many face serious barriers to accessing higher education (see for example, the story of Nur* in the Appendix to this Report: Stories of Statelessness in Australia). “Our youngest child—he recently was granted Australian citizenship. It took nearly three years for his application to be approved. He could get citizenship because my wife and I are stateless and he was born here. But this is not the case for our other children. Sometimes this causes tension—they ask us ‘why does he get citizenship and we don’t? We are all siblings, what is the difference?” — Kareem* 4.3.5 Stateless people are disproportionately impacted by visa cancellations and refusals Stateless people who are not found to be owed protection under Australia’s refugee protection framework, or have their visa cancelled face a heightened risk of prolonged immigration detention given that they have no country to be ‘returned’ to. Nor is there any visa category or pathway they can be placed on to naturalisation by virtue of their statelessness (with the exception of children born in Australia to stateless parents). “For stateless detainees it’s all the more hopeless, where they can’t even do what others are doing, which is saying, “Okay, fine, I’ll just agree to be removed (from Australia).” — Natalie Young, Australian Legal Practitioner, Victoria Legal Aid The disproportionate risk stateless people face concerning visa refusal or cancellation reveals a critical gap in Australia’s immigration framework, whereby stateless people are assessed within the same procedural frameworks as other non-citizens, despite the fundamental difference in their legal status and ability to be returned to their country of origin. “I think the plight of stateless people is heartbreaking because it’s like the constant conversation around people making plans to return, if they’re on what is usually described as a “negative pathway” where people have got nowhere to return, is really challenging.” — Refugee Health Worker — Nicki Lees, Australian Legal Practitioner, Maurice Blackburn Understanding Statelessness in Australia | Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness 49