4.4.3 Regularisation Only eight of the participants in the study had had their immigration status regularised through a grant of leave to enter or remain, usually after a long period left in limbo as refused asylumseekers.140 A total of 29 participants remained undocumented and in limbo at the time of their interviews for periods ranging up to, and in some cases exceeding, five years since the rejection of their asylum claims or other applications for leave to remain in the UK. In recent decades the Secretary of State has undertaken a number of backlog clearance exercises in respect of asylum-seekers whose claims have not been determined or who, after their claims have been refused, have not left the UK or been removed. These exercises have provided a basis for non-nationals, including stateless persons, to apply to regularise their immigration status outside the Immigration Rules. In some cases these measures have been accompanied by administrative rearrangement and allocation of case working resources to undertake the exercise.141 In other cases, the policies have been maintained more broadly. Examples include the “one-off family exercise” for asylum-seekers who had claimed asylum before 1 October 2000 and who had dependent children,142 specific policies in respect of non-national children who had been in the UK for seven years,143 and non-nationals who married British citizens or persons who were settled in the UK.144 The Immigration Rules themselves also contain provisions that could facilitate stateless persons who had not left the territory acquiring leave to enter or remain. Paragraph 395c mandates caseworkers to consider the compassionate circumstances of the case before enforcing administrative removal. Policy guidance on how compassionate circumstances should be interpreted includes taking into account, amongst other things, the prospect of enforcing removal.145 Given the problems that exist in removing stateless persons, it is likely that the application of this provision by the Case Resolution Directorate has resulted in the regularisation of a significant number of stateless persons, albeit that no formal identification of their statelessness was made during decision-making.146 140 Participants 8, 9, 19, 28, 33 were all regularised by the Case Resolution Directorate. Those participants regularised who did not experience a period in limbo were participant 23, who was granted indefinite leave to remain under the “one-off family exercise” before his asylum claim was decided and participants 22 and 37 who were granted Humanitarian Protection which is the equivalent of “subsidiary protection” under the EC Qualification Directive. 141 For example in the operation of the Case Resolution Directorate which aimed to either remove or grant leave to enter or remain to all asylum-seekers who had claimed asylum before March 2007. 142 See for details AL (Serbia) (FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (on the application of Rudi) (FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2008] UKHL 42, United Kingdom: House of Lords (Judicial Committee), 25 June 2008, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/ docid/486246502.html, paras. 17–19. 143 See Home Office, DP2/93 and the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance, Chapter 53.5, available at: www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/enforcement/ detentionandremovals/chapter53?view=Binary. 144 Ibid., DP3/96. 145 See UK Border Agency, Enforcement Instructions and Guidance, Chapter 53, available at; http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/enforcement/ detentionandremovals/chapter53?view=Binary. 146 Anecdotal evidence from a semi-structured interview with a UKBA Senior Caseworker (15 August 2011) suggested that while the lack of prospects of enforcing the removal of a stateless persons would be one factor considered in the application of paragraph 395c, it would not in itself be conclusive. in the United Kingdom 71