be a hidden issue.196 It was suggested that more complete guidance on the identification of statelessness would be useful and that this could be a basis upon which increased training on the issue, potentially to Senior Caseworkers, could be considered as well as with regard to future reforms to the Quality Audit Team’s decision-making quality assurance matrix and remit. 4.6.1 Screening and early identification One trend that appeared in the analysis of the immigration files of participants was the failure by UK Border Agency officials to record on CID where individuals identify themselves as stateless at the initial screening interview after the participant had claimed asylum.197 This was particularly evident among Kuwaiti Bidouns, several of whom describe having identified themselves as stateless on arrival but subsequently discovered that their nationality was recorded by immigration officers as “Kuwaiti”. In some cases, when this was queried, participants reported that it was said this was because “this is where you are from”. The officials who work at the Asylum Screening Unit are responsible for taking initial details from applicants who claim asylum having already passed through port immigration control. When interviewed for this study,198 officials stated that they came across few statelessness related cases. The majority of stateless applicants self-identified as being stateless. Screening officers record these individuals on CID as “stateless” using one of the relevant nationality categories. Screening officers tended to trust the self-identification by individuals. Furthermore, in the Screening Unit’s experience it would be rare for a stateless person to have documentation to prove their statelessness. The Kuwaiti Bidoun stateless participants referred to above recalled a different experience with their nationality being recorded as Kuwaiti despite their recollection that they indicated that they considered themselves to be stateless Bidouns. Three of this group applied for asylum in-country at the Asylum Screening Unit199 and the other two participants200 applied on arrival at port. This indicates that there may be issues in the identification and recording of stateless persons at ports and in the Asylum Screening Unit. The officials at the Asylum Screening Unit also noted that they were not aware of a difference between the CID nationality categories of “Officially stateless”, “Stateless Convention 1954 - Article 1”, “Unknown nationality” and “Unspecified nationality”. Moreover, the researchers observed that there was no consistent approach adopted in the use of these categories. It was also noted that where specific categories on CID exist, such as “Kuwaiti Bidoun” or “Palestinian” these categories would be used in preference to generic statelessness categories. In these instances, applicants would not be identified on CID by one of the stateless related categories despite the fact they may have self-declared as stateless, which could result in statelessness being masked. Furthermore, when reviewing participant files on CID numerous examples emerged where information on nationality had been entered inaccurately or inconsistently.201 196 Anecdotal information from semi-structured interviews with the Quality Audit Team (1 August 2011) and with a UKBA Asylum Senior Caseworker (15 August 2011). 197 For example participants 10, 15, 16, 27 and 31. Anecdotal information from semi-structured interview with the Asylum Screening Unit (15 August 2011). 198 82 199 Participants 10, 15 and 31. 200 Participants 16 and 27. Mapping statelessness