ability as to how much of the tax amount can be considered to be the threshold, beyond which the payment is considered practically impossible or extremely difficult. In light of the above, it is difficult to identify how many cases exist in Japan of persons who can be considered stateless under the “operation of law” where Chinese, Myanmar, or other countries’ consulates or embassies treat the individuals concerned in the same or similar manner as above. 4. Solutions for Category H (1) Prevention As stated above, as this category of statelessness or risk of statelessness is related to the treatment of the embassies or consulates of different countries, it is difficult for the government of Japan to make requests to these embassies or consulates to make improvements and so on. Thus, it is not easy to prevent statelessness under Category H from arising. (2) Protection and reduction The responses by the immigration authorities differ in relation to Case 15 and Case 16. Neither of the persons involved in these cases have had their births registered with the relevant embassy or consulate. However, the person in Case 15 has been determined to be “stateless” in the Immigration Bureau’s examination of his or her stay, and the person in Case 16 has been determined to be of “Myanmar” within the deportation procedure. The difference is that the person in Case 15 had assistance from experts or an assistance organization from the time of birth, and the denial of the birth registration by the embassy had already been clear at the time of the relevant procedure. In contrast, in Case 16, the legal representative/attorney was contacted by the mother concerned only after she had already been detained and issued with a deportation order, and thus by that time the nationality determination by the Immigration Bureau had already been accomplished. What followed afterwards also differed significantly. In Case 15, the person concerned had been adopted by a Japanese couple through the special adoption procedure and had access to Japanese nationality. However, the person in Case 16 was not cared for by his or her mother and had been living in a child care institution. Furthermore, the fact that the Japanese administrative bodies deem him or her to be of Myanmar nationality while he or she does not appear to be recognized as a national by any country makes his position all the more vulnerable. As seen above, it is important from a protection point of view to establish a system where the persons concerned can rapidly and easily access assistance by legal professionals or aid organizations. This is because of the reality that the outcome of the cases can significantly differ depending on the point in the process at which aid organizations or experts become involved. 108