Citizenship Deprivation In The United Kingdom 169 SIAC’s approach to determining statelessness seemed in line with UNHCR’s position on the issue and its guidelines.20 The guidelines underline that establishing whether an individual is not considered a national under the operation of a state’s law is a mixed question of fact and law. Moreover, in practice this may lead to a different conclusion than the one derived from a purely objective analysis of the application of nationality law. According to the guidelines, the reference to law in the definition of statelessness in Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention covers situations where the written law is substantially modified when it comes to its implementation in practice.21 SIAC followed this approach in the B2 case22 where it had to interpret Vietnamese nationality legislation. The British executive was seeking to deprive B2 of citizenship due to his alleged involvement in terrorism related activities. Based on partly closed material, SIAC decided that the Vietnamese nationality legislation was on purpose ambiguous: despite the fact that formally Vietnamese courts had jurisdiction over nationality disputes, in fact the government took whatever decisions it wished. Since the Vietnamese government did not consider B2 as one of its citizens, SIAC had to decide that he could not be stripped of UK citizenship without being made stateless.23 SIAC’s decision was overturned upon appeal to the extent that B2 was considered de facto stateless, a legal category that according to the ‘Prato Conclusions’ is not defined in any legally binding international instrument.24 The appeal court motived its decision by arguing that ‘if the Government of the foreign state chooses to act contrary to its own law, it may render the individual de facto stateless. Our own courts, however, must respect the rule of law and cannot characterize the individual as de jure stateless.’25 The UK court’s disregard for the UNHCR guidelines and the generally accepted definition of statelessness has far reaching consequences for B2 who has been stripped of 20 21 22 23 24 25 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Expert Meeting - The Concept of Stateless Persons under International Law (‘Prato Conclusions’), May 2010, available at: <http:// www.refworld.org/docid/4ca1ae002.html> accessed 20 October 2013; UN High Com­ missioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines on Statelessness No. 1: The definition of ‘Stateless Person’ in Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 20 February 2012, HCR/GS/12/01, available at: <http://www.refworld.org/ docid/4f4371b82.htm> accessed 20 October 2013. UNHCR, Guidelines on Statelessness No. 1: The definition of ‘Stateless Person’ in Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, paras. 16-17. B2 v SSHD, SC/114/2012, date of judgment 29th June 2012. Ibid, paras. 18-19. Prato Conclusions (n 20) para. 8. B2 v SSHD [2013] EWCA Civ 616, para. 92. tilburg law review 19 (2014) 163-170