Lack of Protection for Stateless Persons in Germany 14. As stated above, a number of existing administrative provisions and procedures in Germany are relevant to stateless persons, but there is no dedicated mechanism through which statelessness is identified and stateless persons protected in line with the 1954 Convention. As the existing provisions are limited to immigration procedures within a decentralised administrative system with a high burden of proof on the applicant, it is difficult to understand how immigration authorities deal with statelessness when it arises.29 In practice, many cases of statelessness appear to be identified if a case proceeds to the Administrative Court. A judicial determination of statelessness is not an acceptable alternative to an administrative procedure for several reasons: only a few cases can proceed to the courts, depending on the resources and access to legal aid of the applicants; the time to obtain a decision becomes considerably longer; and access to the courts in general is more complicated than access to administrative procedures. 15. There is little awareness of statelessness within Germany’s international protection procedures and it is not clear if adequate guidance and discretion has been afforded to decision makers, to protect stateless persons through the granting of any form of ‘stateless status’ (or subsidiary protection) should statelessness arise and refugee protection be refused. For people affected, it appears that there is limited information available. Current publications in several languages by the BAMF focus on the asylum system and its steps. 16. One concern is that a combination of a high burden of proof on the applicant and a tendency within the BAMF to not grant statelessness status, applicants are often assumed to have a nationality which they are unable or unwilling to confirm. The fall-back option tends to be for individuals to be categorised as having ‘unclear’ nationality. This status remains with them, with no protection attached, despite the fact that many of these people may be stateless with an entitlement to protection under international law. 17. Under German law, all foreigners who enter or stay in the country have a duty to provide their passports or identity papers. If a foreigner does not possess such a document, they have the obligation to cooperate (Mitwirkungspflicht) with the authorities, and to take all reasonable measures to provide substantive proof of identity and origin. A failure to cooperate can lead to fines. Importantly, requiring a foreigner to repeatedly approach the embassy of their presumed country of nationality is unreasonable, if it is clear that this would be unsuccessful due to previous failed attempts. 18. While the burden of proof is with the individual, in instances where some facts, such as impossibility to leave, may be difficult to establish, or some documents difficult to obtain, the burden of proof is shared between the applicant and the government.30 29 Bianchini,K, A Comparative Analysis of Statelessness Determination Procedures in 10 EU States, International Journal of Refugee Law, Volume 29:1, 2017, pp.42–83 30 §3 Abs 1; §48 Abs 3; §49 Abs 3 Aufenthaltsgesetz vom 25. Februar 2008 (BGBl 2008 I, 162), zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 20. Juli 2017 (BGBl 2017 I, 2780) [Residence Act]; §56 Abs 1-3; Aufenthaltsverordnung (AufenthV) vom 25.11.2004 (BGBl 2004 I, 2945), zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 1 der Verordnung vom 20.12.2016 (BGBl 2016 I, 3074) [Residence Regulation]; Rechtslupe, ‘Identitätsfeststellung – und die Aufforderung zur Vorsprache bei der Botschaft‘ (2014) https://www.rechtslupe.de/verwaltungsrecht/identitaetsfeststellung-und-die-aufforderung-zur-vorsprache-bei-der-botschaft379549; §98 Abs 2 Satz 3; Aufenthaltsgesetz vom 25. Februar 2008 (BGBl 2008 I, 162), zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 20. Juli 2017 (BGBl 2017 I, 2780); [Residence Act]; 25.5.4 ; 48.3; 49.3; Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift zum Aufenthaltsgesetz (AufenthG-VwV) vom 26.10.2009 (GMBl 2009, 878) [General Administrative Regulation for the Residence Act]; BVerwG, Urteil v 17.03.2004 - 1 C 1.03; VG Saarland v 18.07.2008 – 6 K 0106/06; BVerG v 15.06.2006 – 1 B 54.06, Buchholz 402.242, §25 AufentG, Nr 4. See also, Dr. Friedrich Schoch in Schoch, Schneider, Bier, Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung. VwGO (32. EL, CH Beck 2016) § 123 recital 97; VGH München, Urteil v 9.07.2012 - 20 B 12.30003; BVerwG, Urteil v 16.04.1985 - 9 C 109/84, BVerwGE 71, 180ff; Prof. Michael Dawin in Schoch, Schneider, Bier, Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung. VwGO (32. EL, CH Beck 2016) §86 recital 19ff. 4