registered as a national of Myanmar or issued with a Myanmar national passport. As a logical consequence, the execution of a deportation order (forcible deportation to Myanmar) cannot be achieved. C has been in a situation of irregular stay for a prolonged period of time. 3. Possible size of Category H (1) Where this category fits within the whole context This category covers persons born in Japan who are supposed to have acquired the nationality of a relevant country under the text of the law of that country, who however do not appear to be considered nationals by the demonstrated treatment of the relevant consular authorities. In particular, this category specifically covers persons whose treatment by the consulate or embassy may be influenced by their discrimination against children born out of wedlock. Categories B, C and D [State succession I, Consulate denial I (Refugees), and Consulate denial II (Persons similarly situated as refugees)] have common characteristics with Category H, as the treatment by the consulate or embassy either indicates the statelessness of the persons concerned, or it has led or is leading to their statelessness. When the person concerned is outside the territory of the purported country of nationality, how he or she is treated by the consulate or embassy of that country becomes crucially important. If the relevant consulate or embassy denies the person’s registration as a national, the person ends up without any measures to confirm his or her possession of that nationality. Thus, the treatment of the person concerned by the consulate or embassy can be considered an “operation of law” by the competent authorities, and if it demonstrates that the person is not considered a national, he or she may possibly be considered to meet the statelessness definition. (2) The possible size of category H This category of persons covers cases which are caused by the responses of the relevant consulate or embassy in Japan. In order to identify the number accurately, it is necessary to grasp how many cases of similar treatment occur by all consulates and embassys in Japan. However, in reality, it is difficult to obtain an overview of all embassies’ responses. In Case 15, the abovementioned treatment by the Chinese embassy (presumably the consulate section) was accepted as a fact within the context of the family court adjudication. Some points remain unclear such as whether all six Chinese consulates throughout Japan other than the Consulate Section of the Embassy of China in Tokyo takes the same approach in the same scenario. Furthermore, in relation to cases from Myanmar as exemplified by Case 16, it is still unclear what type of taxation is imposed under what sorts of criteria and how systematic the tax collection is actually enforced. It also depends on the particular individual’s financial 107