1.1.2 Doctrinal research The doctrinal component of the project sought to systematically examine how applications for protection brought by stateless people are assessed across a range of administrative contexts and at all levels of Australia’s immigration and judicial system over the course of a decade, including applications for protection visas, visa cancellations on identity or other grounds, and applications for citizenship. A case law review of almost 800 decisions from tribunals (primarily the Administrative Review Tribunal in its various iterations over this period)10 and federal courts, primarily the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Federal Circuit Court) and Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court) over a ten-year period from 2011–2022 sought to examine how decision makers engage with claims made by stateless people and develop an understanding of: • the contexts in which statelessness is relevant to an administrative decision; • the methods used to make a finding about a person’s statelessness status; • the evidentiary standards and decision-making methods adopted, and; • the relevance, or consequences, of decision makers’ findings in relation to the statelessness status. Decisions and cases were included if they concerned applicants who were stateless, were at risk of statelessness or had made a claim to be stateless. Given significant legislative changes since the review period, key cases from later years were also incorporated in the doctrinal analysis. A person’s nationality status or risk of statelessness may impact their case, either: a. directly, in the case of assessments for protection, visa cancellations on the basis of contravening section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act)11 and citizenship applications under section 21 (8) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (Citizenship Act)12; or b. indirectly, in the case of visa cancellations generally or adult citizenship applications. Statelessness is directly relevant to decision-making when it is central to assessments for refugee or complementary protection or citizenship applications under s 21(8) of the Citizenship Act. It may also be a direct consideration in the weighing of factors as to whether there is a compelling reason to overturn a visa cancellation decision because of the potential for indefinite detention (before the High Court’s decision in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2023] HCA 32 (NZYQ) (discussed in section 2.2.2 of this Report) or when the reason for a purported contravention of s 101(b) of the Migration Act (providing false information) is that the visa holder claimed to be stateless. 12 Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness | Understanding Statelessness in Australia Alternatively, statelessness may indirectly affect administrative decisions when stateless people are unable to access documents to prove their identity, which often prevents them from being granted Australian citizenship. Stateless people navigating the legal system, as well as judges and tribunal members, must also respond to a consistently shifting legislative and policy landscape. During the review period, where courts have tempered the harsh impact of legislation—particularly on stateless people enduring indefinite detention—further legislative change has undermined protections and compromised rights of stateless people guaranteed by the Statelessness Conventions. 1.1.3 Empirical research and thematic analysis Our qualitative research involved interviews with two key groups: stakeholders and stateless participants and was conducted pursuant to research ethics approval at the University of Melbourne13. The stakeholder interviews involved individuals who work with stateless people in Australia and/or on policy relevant to stateless people, and whose perspectives thereby offered insight into current practices, challenges and gaps regarding the legal and institutional protection framework. These participants were informed about the Project initially through contacting organisations with which the project team had an existing relationship, including members of the Stateless Children Australia Network. Once stakeholders were identified, we then invoked the ‘snowball method’ whereby each participant was invited to offer recommendations as to other suitable participants. The second element of our qualitative research comprised interviews with stateless participants, which was critical to grounding the research in the lived experiences and concerns of the people who the protection frameworks are meant to serve. However, given that the lack of research and general absence of information on stateless individuals in Australia means that they are a somewhat ‘hidden’ population, this research was necessarily exploratory in nature. From the limited available information, we knew of the existence of certain groups in Australia with a higher prevalence of statelessness, including Rohingya, Palestinians, Bidoon from the Gulf States and Feyli Kurds. The Project therefore relied largely on access through intermediaries (including the ‘stakeholders’ identified earlier) and snowballing techniques to identify research participants. While all interviews with stakeholders were conducted in English, interpreters were sometimes engaged to assist in interviews with stateless people for whom English is not their first language. This was to ensure that non-English-speaking participants provided informed consent for participation in the Project. We were careful to ensure that each participant fully understood the topic of the research and consent process. Interpreters were provided by a nationally accredited and independent interpreter service.