The file reviews also provided examples of where the UK Border Agency had maintained a participant’s nationality after failing to take account of evidence on the immigration file207 or where a participant had been refused entry by the receiving state during an attempted removal to their attributed country of nationality.208 In relation to the two cases above, it is suggested that the refusal by the receiving state to recognise nationality combined with the absence of any other state to which either participant had a relevant connection indicated that the participants should have been identified as being stateless. A leading jurist in this area has observed that “[i]f the foreign state refuses to recognise the person involved as a national, other States are absolutely not entitled to conclude that the person in question is nevertheless a national of this foreign State. If the person involved does not possess any other nationality, this person is de jure stateless and must enjoy the advantages of statelessness according to reducing provisions”.209 However, this did not happen in either case. The above examples illustrate that there are instances of UK Border Agency officials registering stateless persons as being of unconfirmed (or incorrectly attributed) nationality on CID. This creates a risk that their stateless status is masked or there is a failure to determine whether, in fact, the individual is stateless. This acts as an additional barrier preventing stateless persons from accessing rights guaranteed under the 1954 Convention and international human rights law. 4.6.3 Difficulties in establishing whether consular authorities treated participants as nationals A common issue that appeared from the participants’ testimony and case files was a reluctance by consular authorities to engage with requests of individuals to be documented and treated as a national, or to put in writing their conclusions as to whether the individual making the approach was a national.210 The refusal of consular authorities to engage or respond in writing appears to be a particular problem where the participants themselves approached consular authorities, but is also evident where direct contact takes place between UK Border Agency and the relevant authority. While such difficulties may be wholly or partly attributable to the conduct of either the individual or embassy concerned, the evidence examined did not reveal a systematic or consistent process by which the UK Border Agency engages with consular authorities to obtain documentation to facilitate removal. Furthermore there was evidence of a failure to pursue enquiries with due diligence.211 The difficulties present in trying to establish an entitlement to nationality or consular protection are illustrated by the case of Tauy. 84 207 Participant 28. Here the participant had his nationality recorded as “Sierra Leone” despite the fact that he was a British protected person (BPP) and the UKBA were asserting him to be Lebanese by descent (this in spite of the participant having adduced letters from both the Lebanese and the Sierra Leonean authorities confirming that he was not a national). 208 For example, participant 6. 209 De Groot, G-R., A clarification of the fundamental rights implications of stateless and persons erased from the register of residents, Briefing paper European Parliament, 2007, p. 4. 210 Participants 3, 16, 24, 25, 29, and 30. 211 For example, participant 18. Mapping statelessness