in the Immigration Rules.124 That said, the exclusion of reference to the 1954 Convention within the Immigration Rules in 1980 may have been made on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the nature of the UK’s international obligations. As a result of this change, there are no specific provisions within the Immigration Rules that allow for a stateless person on the UK territory to be protected against expulsion in accordance with the 1954 Convention. Unlike refugees, there is no provision for stateless persons to be granted leave to enter or remain on the basis of their statelessness in the Immigration Rules. 4.4.2 Discretion and policy The Secretary of State has the power to grant leave to enter or remain in the UK on a discretionary basis. From time to time written policy statements are issued which set out how that discretion will be exercised. At present these policy statements are published on the UK Border Agency website. In the past, such policies were made public through letters. In a letter dated 18 December 1998 from the Asylum Policy Unit to a solicitors firm, the terms of a policy relating to stateless persons were set out. It provided that stateless persons who were on the UK territory would, subject to fulfilling certain conditions, be granted the same period of leave to remain as refugees granted asylum which, at that time, was Indefinite Leave to Remain.125 The conditions were that he or she had no residence rights in any countries and that the UK was the most appropriate country for “resettlement”. This application of this policy helped ensure that the UK met its international obligations to stateless persons under the 1954 Convention and international human rights law.126 Indeed, the granting of a residence permit to those recognised as stateless is, in general, reflected in the practice of States that have established statelessness status determination procedures.127 This policy appears still to have been in force in April 2002, when the Immigration Appeal Tribunal128 considered the case of an ethnic Russian who was found to be stateless and who had previously been resident in Estonia. He was found to have lost his USSR nationality when that State dissolved, but had not acquired Estonian nationality. He had claimed asylum, and argued that he should be allowed to remain on the basis that his removal would breach his right to respect for family life because he would not be readmitted to Estonia and that this 68 124 See, for example, A.K. v. SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 1117, paras. 51 and 52: “Mr Williams submitted that in the present case the Secretary of State ought to have considered the 1954 Convention in deciding whether or not to grant the appellant discretionary leave outside the Immigration Rules, and that the Secretary of State’s failure to consider it meant that his decision was open to appeal under section 82 of the 2002 Act on the ground that it was “otherwise not in accordance with the law” within section 84(1)(e). This argument, too, is beset with difficulties. Since the issue was not raised before the Secretary of State and was not the subject of any published policy, it is difficult to see how his decision could be challenged for failure to consider the point.” 125 See Stateless Persons (Bidoons of Kuwait) Immigration and Nationality Directorate letter, 18 December 1998, Butterworths Immigration Law Service, Issue 29 (on file with the authors). 126 See UNHCR, Geneva Summary Conclusions, para. 25 “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.” 127 Ibid., para. 27. 128 AF (Return) Estonia [2002] UKIAT 02544. Mapping statelessness