also a note of a communication from IOM to the UK Border Agency from May 2007 which stated that it is “…unlikely that he [Tauy] would receive a document as he is stateless”. Furthermore, the support that Tauy was given as a refused asylum-seeker was withdrawn twice only to be quickly reinstated following successful appeals in June 2010 and January 2011 respectively, after it was found that he was cooperating with attempts to remove him. Despite so many years in limbo, the UK Border Agency decided not to grant Tauy leave under paragraph 395c of the Immigration Rules when his case was considered by the Case Resolution Directorate in February 2011. It appears that, contrary to UK Border Agency policy,213 no weight was attached to the clear evidence on file that there was little prospect of enforcing removal. Tauy’s frustration at his treatment and continuing limbo (exacerbated by the fact that he is highly qualified and has been offered university places which he cannot take up due to his lack of status) is evident: “They are trying to destroy me physically. It is dirty tricks. I am stateless.” He describes seeing himself as “an undesirable alien” and being prepared to leave immediately if this were possible: “I see that according to the law they will not allow me to go out of this country. Give me a travel document and I will leave immediately – you will not see me again. If I am undesirable here then okay but allow me to go out.” “My life started in the Soviet gulag and now I have ended up stuck in this gulag.” Tauy’s situation also reflects a potential confusion of roles between the UK Border Agency and the organisation contracted to run the Voluntary Assisted Return Scheme (at that time IOM). IOM, often in the absence of UK Border Agency involvement, took a role in facilitating or assisting with relevant enquiries to try and establish nationality or to obtain travel documents for the purposes of return.214 In Tauy’s case,215 IOM were prepared to provide written confirmation of the difficulties that Tauy was having in persuading the Belarus consular authority to treat him as a national, but this did not occur in other participants’ cases.216 If the UK Border Agency is to successfully identify stateless persons who are not being treated as nationals by consular authorities of a State to whom the applicant has a relevant link and share the burden of proof with the applicant, it will be necessary for the Agency to participate actively in the process, to collect and consider relevant evidence. This is particularly important in the context of evidence that came to light during the research. This showed that where individuals are either held in detention, are destitute or lack legal representation, it is more difficult for them to establish that they are not being treated as a national under the operation of the law of the States to which they have a relevant link. Given the significant incidence of both detention and destitution among stateless and “unreturnable” persons interviewed during the research, it is all the more problematic that the UK Border 86 213 UK Border Agency, Enforcement Instructions and Guidance, Chapter 53.3.1 available at: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/enforcement/ detentionandremovals/chapter53?view=Binary. 214 This was also evident in the cases of participants 3, 4, 5, 11, 18, and 20. 215 It was also the case in the case of participant 11. 216 For example, participant 20. Mapping statelessness