former habitual residence and that he would be entitled to naturalise as an Indian citizen. It found that he was not at risk of persecution in India. Nischal appealed this decision. In a determination dated 16 September 2010, the Tribunal concluded that Nischal was not at risk of persecution in India and rejected the appeal on refugee and human rights grounds.110 However, the Tribunal found, after considering the evidence, that Nischal was stateless and that he had no possible entitlement to legal status or return to India. The Tribunal directed that “[t]he Appellant is stateless and the matter is remitted to the [Secretary of State for the Home Department] for her consideration”. Nischal heard nothing from the UK Border Agency until October 2010. At that point, he received a letter informing him that his asylum application had been refused and fully determined, and that he was not entitled to asylum support or accommodation. It stated that as a failed asylum seeker he was expected to make arrangements to leave the UK without delay. The letter identified Nischal’s nationality as Bhutanese and made no reference to the Tribunal’s legally binding finding111 that Nischal is stateless and could not be returned to India, his country of former habitual residence. A review of Nischal’s immigration file shows no action in relation to the Tribunal’s finding and direction. No attempts to pursue removal have been followed up, despite the fact that Nischal has always maintained contact with the UK Border Agency, including notifying the Agency when he changed address. At the time of the interview, Nischal remained destitute. Without any asylum support, he is totally reliant on the charity of friends from the ethnic Nepalese community living in and around London. He said: “It can be very hard sometimes. I remember one time I was staying with some friends and they went to Germany for a long weekend without leaving any food in the house. So I could not eat for two days. Eventually I contacted another Nepalese friend but I didn’t want to tell him I’d not eaten so I just pretended I was bored and asked him to come round to pick me up so we could hang out together. When he arrived he realised I was starving so he bought me some food.” On some occasions Nischal has found himself street homeless: “I remember one night when a friend was meant to collect me from Farnborough but he never turned up as it turned out that he had to work a night shift at short notice. So I spent the night walking around the town centre from 10pm until 9am in the morning. I was afraid to lie down and sleep in case I was attacked or robbed. It was freezing.” He also worries about how his friends perceive him and the burden he is placing on them. 110 The Tribunal may have erred in assessing the protection claim in that it did not consider Bhutan as the country of former habitual residence in accordance with the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, January 1992, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/ docid/3ae6b3314.html, paras 103-105. Further, it did not consider whether, if Nischal was sent from India to Bhutan his rights under Article 3 ECHR would be infringed, see S.H. v. United Kingdom, App. no. 19956/06. 111 Chomanga (binding effect of unappealed decisions) Zimbabwe [2011] UKUT 00312 (IAC). in the United Kingdom 63