international instruments to which the UK is a party”.117 This gave a basis upon which a stateless person could attempt to resist his or her deportation by reference to Article 31 of the 1954 Convention. The wording of the provision makes it clear that, at that time, the Secretary of State considered that refugees and stateless persons were owed international obligations, which had to be taken into account in the exercise of immigration control.118 However, the Immigration Rules were changed in March 1980. Any reference to stateless persons was omitted, whilst maintaining provisions that related to refugees. The reason for this omission was unexplained. The then leading legal textbook on immigration law119 concluded that this was as a result of the decision of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal in Kelzani.120 Mr Kelzani was a stateless Palestinian who had been lawfully resident in the UK for a considerable period. The Secretary of State for the Home Department sought to remove him to Egypt, although there was a dispute about whether he would be admitted there. Mr Kelzani appealed, seeking to rely on Article 31 of the 1954 Convention, which provides both substantive and procedural protections against expulsion of stateless persons who are lawfully on the territory.121 Mr Kelzani’s case came before the Immigration Appeals Tribunal which held, in interpreting Article 31, that “the control of immigration is necessary for the maintenance of public order”. The consequence of this ruling was that the State could always justify the expulsion of a stateless person who had been granted leave to enter or remain solely by reference to the need to “control immigration” and, as a result, Article 31 would never be breached on the grounds that the State could not justify the expulsion. This finding has been criticised122 and, if interpretation of Article 31 was substantively considered by the UK courts in the future, there is a strong possibility that the courts would rule that it provides stronger protection.123 It is, however, unlikely that a Court will have the opportunity to consider this matter given the omission of reference to the 1954 Convention 117 Paragraph 56 of Immigration Rules HC 82. The subsequent paragraph of the Immigration Rules also required that full account be taken of the 1951 Convention. 118 Paragraph 57 of Immigration Rules HC 82. 119 Macdonald’s Immigration Law and Practice, 1st Edition, 1983, p. 251. 120 Kelzani v. SSHD, [1978] Imm AR 193, UK Immigration Appeal Tribunal, 7 Nov 1978, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b62e8.html. 121 1954 Convention, Article 31 provides: 1. The Contracting States shall not expel a stateless person lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order. 2. The expulsion of such a stateless person shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the stateless person shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority. 3. The Contracting States shall allow such a stateless person a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary”. 122 See Gashi (Asylum; Persecution) Kosovo [1996] UKIAT 13695; “If the decision of the Tribunal concerning this Convention in Kelzani (1978 Imm AR 173) were to be decided today we have some doubts whether it would be decided in the same way” and Macdonald’s Immigration Law and Practice, 1st Edition, 1983, p. 251. 123 See, for example, Neremiah Robinson, Convention relating to the status of stateless persons – Its history and interpretation, UNHCR, Geneva, 1955, pp. 96-97: “once a stateless person has been admitted or legalised, he is entitled to stay in the country indefinitely and can forfeit this right only by becoming a national security risk or by disturbing public order”. in the United Kingdom 67