It was noted that there was no training given to ASU staff on the identification of nationality, and no relevant continuous professional development training was provided. The attribution of a nationality category at the beginning of the asylum process is particularly important because there is evidence that CID nationality categories are not automatically amended when someone is subsequently found to be stateless, such as after a hearing at the Tribunal.202 Moreover, even if an individual is subsequently granted asylum or another form of leave to remain, a failure to properly record statelessness at the outset may subsequently impact on the person’s ability to obtain a 1954 Convention Travel Document or, at least, complicate the decision-making process before this can be issued.203 The evidence confirms the need to rationalise stateless and unknown nationality categories on CID and the importance of the development of new guidance and training on the identification of statelessness at screening and in other areas of the asylum process. 4.6.2 The attribution of nationality without appropriate evidence The evidence also indicated that, in some instances, UK Border Agency officials would attribute a nationality without sufficient or appropriate evidence.204 There was also evidence that officials would not adjust the nationality categorisation of an individual, despite evidence to the contrary. This included where an embassy or consulate had refused to acknowledge an individual as a national of the State in question after an interview.205 This is a prominent feature of the case of one participant,206 where the UK Border Agency continued to assert his nationality as Ethiopian despite a previous refusal by the Ethiopian authorities to acknowledge this. As the Eritrean authorities had also refused to recognise him as a national, this failure to recognise his stateless status contributed to his detention under the Immigration Act 1971 for a cumulative total of over five years, whilst unsuccessful attempts were made to remove him. 201 For example participant 1, who had entered the UK on a stateless person travel document issued by Lithuania, but on CID and in correspondence his “nationality” was erroneously recorded as Lithuanian. Several instances were also observed of individuals who, despite being recognised by the UK Border Agency as an undocumented Bidoun from Kuwait, had their country of nationality erroneously recorded as “Kuwait” on CID and in status letters (e.g. participant 31). Participant 28 was recorded in the nationality field on CID as “Kuwait Bidoun” but in correspondence as variously “Kuwait”, “Kuwait Bidoun” and “Kuwait (Bidoun Claimed)”. Yet in other cases where it was disputed that the participant was Bidoun as claimed the nationality was simply recorded as “Kuwait” with no other record having been made in the person notes on CID. 202 Participant 6, case study set out at the start of Chapter 4. 203 See anecdotal information from semi-structured interview with UKBA Travel Document team (9 August 2011). 204 Participants 1, 2 and 26. 205 Participants 3, 4 and 20. 206 Participant 17. in the United Kingdom 83