of informed judgment, which has been subsequently expanded upon through Tribunal decisions. While the general citizenship policy is strict in requiring documentary evidence for citizenship applications, it does note that statelessness can significantly impact upon a person’s ability to provide documents attesting to their identity. Consequently, CPI 16 directs: “There may be cases where one pillar may be given more weight than the others. For example, cases where the applicant claims they are stateless and therefore undocumented. In such cases, the available pillar (for example, life story) may become more significant when assessing the person’s identity.”26 Our review of almost 800 cases concerning stateless people however (discussed in 4.2.2 below) shows that there are very few instances where a consistent and credible life story has been able to overcome a stateless person’s lack of documentation. 2.2.2 Visa status of stateless people Australia’s legal framework for migration is primarily governed by the Migration Act, which regulates the entry, detention, and removal of non-citizens. While it contains provisions for refugee protection, the Act does not provide a dedicated mechanism for identifying or protecting stateless people. Those who are stateless but do not meet the requirements for citizenship can only reside, study and work in Australia (and exercise other relevant rights) if they are eligible for a visa. The Minister is empowered under the Migration Act to grant a visa to remain in Australia for non-citizens from a prescribed list (section 31). Once a valid visa application has been lodged, the Minister must consider the application and grant the visa if the relevant criteria have been satisfied. For a protection visa, the non-citizen must either be recognised as a refugee who is owed protection obligations (s 36(2)(a)), be eligible for complementary protection because removal to a receiving country would risk significant harm (s 36(2)(a)) or be a member of a family unit of a protection visa holder (ss36(2)(c),(d)). Although statelessness is not an independent ground for protection, it is closely tied to many applicants’ protection claims and a finding about a person’s nationality (or lack thereof) can significantly impact their prospects of success in a protection visa application.27 Overall, the case review conducted for this Project has revealed that stateless people are ‘falling through the gaps’ of Australia‘s humanitarian protection system.28 In addition to statelessness arising at the visa application stage, it is also relevant where a decision to cancel a visa is considered. Visa cancellation can occur mandatorily or because the Minister or delegate of the Minister exercises their discretion to cancel a visa.29 18 Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness | Understanding Statelessness in Australia Generally, people who are unsuccessful in obtaining a visa, or who have their visas cancelled, are expected to return to their country of origin. As stateless individuals are not nationals of their countries of origin, they are unable to ‘return’ or be returned by the Australian Government. This leaves stateless individuals who do not qualify for a visa at risk of prolonged periods of immigration detention. Indeed, statistics reveal that even after the High Court of Australia found in NZYQ that indefinite immigration detention (that is where there is no reasonable prospect that a detained non-citizen will be released) is unlawful, stateless people experience a disproportionately higher risk of detention.30 As of 29 February 2024, 881 people remained in immigration detention, including 11 stateless individuals.31 The average length of detention for stateless people was 624 days with 95 people having spent between 5-10 years in detention and six individuals having been detained for more than six years.32 As the statistical and empirical research in this study demonstrates, the vast majority of known stateless people in Australia were not born on Australian territory and arrived seeking asylum under Australia’s refugee protection framework. Many stateless participants interviewed for this project arrived in Australia by boat after significant changes to Australia’s migration framework, driven by political policy. 2.2.3 Immigration policy context The past two decades have marked a particularly punitive approach to how Australia responds to people seeking asylum (including stateless people) who arrive by sea, with pathways to permanent protection extremely limited—and until recently, in the majority of cases, prohibited.33 In 2014 the Australian Government reintroduced temporary refugee visas in the form of the Temporary Protection Visa (‘TPV’) and Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (‘SHEV’) limiting the length of protection available to refugees and prohibiting them from accessing a range of essential services.34 The reintroduction of temporary visas followed the reinstatement of Australia’s policy of offshore processing in August 2012, and then mandatory offshore processing in July 2013, whereby refugees (including stateless people) arriving by boat were taken to the remote Pacific island of the Republic of Nauru, Papua New Guinea and other countries for offshore processing and resettlement programs and prohibited from ever applying for any form of protection in Australia under law.35 Between 19 July 2013 and 27 February 2017, 248 stateless people (including children) were transferred by the Australian government to the Regional Processing Centre on Nauru.36 Conditions of detention in both Nauru and Manus Island raised serious human rights concerns and were subject to extensive examination and condemnation by the Australian Human Rights Commission, an independent Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Review and various UN bodies.37 The majority of people detained offshore were eventually