In addition to specific regularisation programmes, undocumented stateless and “unreturnable” persons may acquire an immigration status as a result of changes in their personal circumstances, for example, by having children or marriage to an EEA national who is exercising treaty rights in the UK. In addition, recent developments in EU law may benefit the stateless or “unreturnable” parents of children who become British or EU nationals.147 Furthermore, paragraph 276A of the Immigration Rules sets out the circumstances in which persons can remain in the UK on the basis of long residence.148 There is also relevant guidance contained within the Discretionary Leave policy.149 It could be argued that measures that facilitate regularisation of the immigration status of stateless persons provide a mechanism to protect human rights, as they have the effect of providing an opportunity for stateless persons to access the entitlements that they are otherwise denied. The evidence, however, from the participants in this study indicates that regularisations are an inadequate safeguard. They result in stateless persons being left on the territory for a period of sometimes several years where they do not have leave to enter or remain and risk, in particular, destitution, homelessness and immigration detention. In addition, the evidence from the study shows that measures that should facilitate the regularisation of stateless persons, such as an individual assessment of the prospects of enforcing removal, are not consistently applied to the benefit of stateless persons.150 In conclusion, if the human rights of stateless persons are to be respected, then it is necessary to identify stateless persons on the UK territory as quickly as possible and, if appropriate, grant them leave to remain. There will, however, be circumstances where it will not be appropriate to grant leave to remain. This reflects part of the UNHCR Geneva Summary Conclusions: “When States recognize individuals as being stateless, they should provide such persons with a lawful immigration status from which the standard of treatment envisaged by the 1954 Convention flows. Having a lawful status contributes significantly to the full enjoyment of human rights. ... “While the 1954 Convention does not explicitly prescribe a right of residence to be accorded upon a person’s recognition as stateless, granting such a right is reflected in current State practice to enable stateless individuals to live with dignity and in security. Participants agreed that this approach is the best means of ensuring protection of stateless persons and upholding the 1954 Convention. Without such status, many stateless persons may be deprived of the protection of the Convention. Nonetheless, it was also discussed whether in a limited set of circumstances it may not be necessary to provide for residence upon recognition. One view was that this would be the case for stateless persons in a migration context who can immediately return to a State of former habitual residence where they enjoy permanent residence as well as the full range of civil, economic, social and cultural rights and have a reasonable prospect of acquiring nationality of that State. 72 147 Zambrano v. Office National de l’Emploi (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de travail, Brussels, Belgium), Case C-34/09, Court of Justice of the European Union, 8 March 2011, available at http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=C34/09. 148 Although, at the time of writing the Home Office was consulting on whether there was a need to maintain the policy. See UK Border Agency, Family Migration – a consultation, July 2011, available at: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/consultations/familymigration/consultation.pdf?view=Binary, p. 64. 149 Asylum Policy Instruction on Discretionary Leave (currently under review, on file with authors). 150 For example, it is not evident that significant weight has automatically been given to statelessness or barriers to removal by the Case Resolution Directorate when reviewing cases. Indeed, six participants (2, 3, 4, 10, 20 and 29) whose cases were within the remit of the Directorate as a result of having applied for asylum before March 2007, had either been refused or not had their cases considered by the Case Resolution Directorate at the time of interview. Mapping statelessness