The second definition used by the Border Guard service is that for persons of “unknown nationality”: persons that are not defined as stateless, those who do not claim being citizen of any state, claim potential affiliation with many states or – even though they indicate a state affiliation, were not recognized by that state as citizens. The Border Guard service also employs a third definition, namely persons whose “citizenship was not confirmed”, understood as persons with no identity documents, whose personal details (including citizenship) are accepted based on oral statements, which are subsequently verified. The Border Guard service reported that recognition of a person as belonging to one of the above-mentioned categories may change during the subsequent identification activities. In comparison to the definitions applied by Eurostat (“stateless persons” and persons of “unknown nationality”), the definitions employed by the Border Guard service differ. The definitions used by the Border Guard service include some of the key elements of the term “stateless person”, such as the notion of a “state” and whether it is universally recognized. The latter is a complex issue, especially with regard to the debate on the declaratory or constitutive nature of state recognition. Still, it is not clear for example how “state affiliation” should be interpreted and why being “stripped of citizenship” is a separate subcategory that is not included under the “no state affiliation” term. In addition, definitions used by the Border Guard service seem to overlap, as a stateless person is a person with no state affiliation, while a person of unknown nationality is someone who is not stateless, yet not recognized by the state indicated. It can be assumed that under the 1954 Convention, those who indicate affiliation with a particular state but were not recognized by that state as citizens would be stateless, unless there is no relevant link to any other state, bearing in mind that the scope of enquiry may be limited to specific criteria, i.e. if a person has personal links to the particular state.38 Therefore, if analyzed from the perspective of the 1954 Convention, these definitions may cause confusion and, in some cases, result in under-representation of stateless persons in official statistics. It is also important to note that the Office for Foreigners relies on the facts established by the Border Guard service in the course of identification procedures (when a foreigner’s identity is unknown), for example, in assessing asylum applications. Therefore, the fact that these two entities employ different definitions may result in incoherent procedures. Adoption of a uniform definition, in line with the definition set forth in the 1954 Convention, regarded as part of international customary law, is therefore crucial for the proper identification of stateless persons in Poland. 38 18 UNHCR Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons provides in para. 18 that “[a]lthough the definition in Article 1(1) is formulated in the negative (“not considered to be a national by any State”), an enquiry into whether someone is stateless is limited to the States with which a person enjoys a relevant link, in particular by birth on the territory, descent, marriage, adoption or habitual residence. In some cases this may limit the scope of investigation to only one State (or indeed to an entity which is not a State).” MAPPING STATELESSNESS IN POLAND