Agency role in these matters is limited. Such difficulties are well summed up by the case of Steven cited above.217 The findings of the research in this area are similar to recent initial findings made by the Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency in a thematic inspection. The report found that: “We appreciate that the re-documentation process is far from straightforward. Even where foreign national prisoners cooperate and provide detail, political and diplomatic issues can affect the availability of documentation, as can relations with Embassies and High Commissions. Staff and managers were aware of the difficulties in obtaining travel documentation from particular countries. However, we saw little evidence that cases were prioritised on the basis of the length of time and potential difficulty in obtaining travel documentation. “The scope of this inspection did not include an assessment of the Agency’s processes for obtaining, or using, [emergency travel documents] in detail. However, given the findings of both this inspection and our inspection of asylum, we intend to carry out a more detailed examination in the future.”218 Semi-structured interviews with UK Border Agency officials and a review of policy guidance indicates there are no directions linking the issue of the refusal by consular authorities to document an individual for the purposes of return with statelessness. The testimonies of the participants above are evidence of the limbo in which individuals can find themselves despite having taken reasonable and necessary steps to try to establish their entitlement to a nationality. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that it was extremely difficult to confirm in every case where statelessness or “unreturnability” was an issue whether the individual had in fact taken all reasonable steps to establish whether consular authorities would treat him or her as a national. This should, however, be viewed in light of the inherent difficulties and limitations that individuals who are in limbo may face. As such, there is a clear need to identify a more balanced and systematic approach to such enquiries and to questions of proof. It is important to note that an efficient statelessness determination procedure has the potential to help the efficient operation of immigration control. If such a procedure was in place it would allow the government to identify those who could and could not be removed. It would also recognise the link between statelessness on the one hand and the failure of consular authorities, in some circumstances to provide documentation. If such a procedure has a possible outcome of regularisation for those who were stateless and who did not have residence in another state where their human rights would be respected, then it would provide a reason for individuals to cooperate with re-documentation processes if they believed that they were stateless. The UK Border Agency’s approach to statelessness is therefore a relevant factor in evaluating its approach to removal and documentation. 217 Participant 29. 218 Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, “A Thematic inspection of how UK Border Agency manages foreign national prisoners”, 27 October 2011, available at: http://icinspector. independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Thematic-inspection-report-of-how-the-Agencymanages-Foreign-National-Prisoners.pdf, paras 5.20 and 5.21. in the United Kingdom 87