PRACTICAL GUIDE ON NATIONALITY ‘A stateless person may have more than one country of former habitual residence’ ( 96). The conditions to consider a country as one of former habitual residence may be fulfilled in respect of several countries if the applicant lived in those countries in succession (or even simultaneously if the applicant split their residence between countries). However, contrary to the question of people with several nationalities, neither the Refugee Convention nor the QR ( 97) provide any specific guidance for assessing the need for international protection of stateless applicants with several countries of former habitual residence. The travaux préparatoires of the Refugee Convention suggests that the drafters were concerned not to differentiate, in terms of definition, between refugees with a nationality and those without a nationality ( 98). Consequently, all the applicant's previous countries of residence should be considered as relevant for the purpose of examining the need for international protection, like this is the case for applicants with multiple nationalities. However, while avoiding unjustified differences between the examination of the application of a national of several countries and that of a stateless applicant with several countries of former habitual residence, it is important to take into account the specificities inherent to the situation of a stateless person. In particular, keep in mind that a stateless person is generally not entitled to a right to return in its countries of former habitual residence and therefore cannot avail themself of the protection from such other countries if needed. For the purpose of assessing the possibility of the applicant to return to a country of former habitual residence, and to avoid a protection gap, national administrations should only consider the countries of former habitual residence: • to which the applicant is able to return; • in which they will not be at risk of persecution or serious harm; and • in which they will not be exposed to a risk of violation of the principle of nonrefoulement (direct or indirect). Indeed, an applicant would not be genuinely in need of international protection if, despite being at risk in one country of former habitual residence, they have the ability to secure protection in another country of former habitual residence ( 99). Note that, as explained in Section 3.3.3. Determining a country of ‘former’ habitual residence, in some EU+ countries, only one country of former habitual residence is taken into account for the purpose of examining the need for international protection. (96) UNHCR, Handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status and guidelines on international protection under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, reissued April 2019, HCR/1P/4/ENG/REV. 4, paragraph 104. (97) Or the QD (recast). (98) M. Foster and H. Lambert, International Refugee Law and the Protection of Stateless Persons, Oxford University Press, 2019, pp. 94-95. (99) J. C. Hathaway and M. Foster, The Law of Refugee Status, Cambridge University Press, Second edition, 2014, p. 73. 63