would separate him from his wife and children. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the facts, but recorded that: “…if the Respondent were not admitted by the Estonian authorities, then it was the policy of the Secretary of State that the Respondent would be re-admitted to the United Kingdom so that his position could be reassessed on the basis that he was a stateless person. There would be no question of any repeated attempt to remove him to Estonia without such reconsideration.”129 It is, however, clear from the testimony of stateless participants in this study that this policy is no longer applied by the UK Border Agency. Furthermore, policy statements from the UK Border Agency make it clear that the Secretary of State’s position has changed. For example, the Asylum Policy Instruction in relation to Palestinians assisted by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) evidences the UK’s approach to stateless persons who, at the same time as making a claim for asylum, also make a claim that they should be granted leave to enter or remain on the basis that they are stateless. It provides: “7. Statelessness issues An asylum claim from a Palestinian may be accompanied by a claim to stay in the UK on the grounds that they are stateless. The UK is a signatory to the 1954 UN Convention on the status of Statelessness Persons [sic], but that Convention does not require signatories to grant leave to stateless persons. There is no provision in primary legislation, the Immigration Rules or Home Office published policies that require leave to be granted to a person on the basis that they are stateless. Such a claim would therefore fall to be refused on the grounds that leave is being sought for a purpose not covered by the Immigration Rules.”130 An earlier version of this policy was issued in September 2002.131 It therefore appears that the way the Home Office treated applications for leave to enter or remain by stateless persons changed in 2002. This change of practice contrasts with the approach by a number of other States Parties to the 1954 Convention, for example France and Spain, that operate a dedicated procedure designed to identify stateless persons. In those States, a residence permit is granted to those found to be stateless.132 This change also coincides with the timing of the abolition of Exceptional Leave to Remain and its replacement with a narrower form of complementary protection regime found in the old Humanitarian Protection and Discretionary Leave Asylum Policy Instructions.133 129 Ibid., para. 13. 130 See Home Office, Asylum Policy Instruction, UNRWA assisted Palestinians available at: www.ukba. homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/asylumpolicyinstructions/apis/unrwa. pdf?view=Binary, p. 3. 131 Email from UK Border Agency to the researchers 7 October 2011 (on file with the authors). 132 In contrast note Van Waas, L., Nationality Matters: Statelessness under International Law, Intersentia, 2008, which at p. 249 states: “These facts uncover what is arguably the core weakness of the 1954 Statelessness Convention: that with no state compelled to allow a stateless person to enter or settle on its territory, these individuals are stuck in a true legal limbo.” 133 See Home Office, Asylum Policy Instruction, Exceptional Leave, Humanitarian Protection and Discretionary Leave, available at: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/ policyandlaw/asylumpolicyinstructions/apunotices/elhpanddl.pdf?view=Binary and Still Human, Still Here, At the End of the Line: Restoring the Integrity of the UK’s Asylum System, pp. 13-15, available at: http://stillhumanstillhere.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/at-the-end-of-the-line-2010.pdf. Note the scope of Humanitarian Protection changed when it was incorporated into the Immigration Rules in October 2006. in the United Kingdom 69