refugee status for some of those with temporary residence, and to ensure that this is done in line with the demands of the cessation provisions for stateless refugees in the 1951 Convention. The wording of the above SMA policy position, only notes the extension of the temporary permit if there continue to ‘be grounds for protection’. However, Sweden, in contravention to its obligations under the 1954 Convention does not consider statelessness as grounds for protection. Further to this, the ‘grounds for protection’ must include consideration of the stateless refugee’s ability to return to their country of previous habitual residence, if Sweden is to meet its obligations under the 1951 Convention. If this is not managed carefully, stateless refugees may find themselves in legal and administrative limbo, with no status and being unable to return to their country of previous habitual residence. This uncertain status, which UNCHR warns against, and the consequences of this can be understood by referring to the literature on those who occupy a ‘state of deportability’, or who fall into the deportation gap in Sweden (see DeBono et al, 2015). Summary With regard to how law and policy related to identifying statelessness in the Danish and Swedish asylum systems, or addressing it following the acceptance of a refugee, contribute to, or address, the situation of indefinite statelessness for stateless refugees, both states can be seen to face some common challenges and gaps. Neither Denmark or Sweden has established a definition of statelessness in their law or policy and their assessment of statelessness cannot be considered formal stateless determination procedures (SDP). Indeed, neither state provides their migration agencies with policy and guidance on the assessment of statelessness. The substantial discretion in assessments resulting from the lack of guidance has led to many people being registered with various nationality statues (for which there is also not guidance or standardisation), and some with incorrect nationalities. These incorrect assessments can be a barrier to securing permanent residence and eventually naturalisation, as they put the credibility of the applicant’s identity in question. Thus, they may lead to the prolonged or indefinite statelessness in both Denmark and Sweden. With regard to the initial identification of statelessness in Denmark and Sweden, it is the responsibility of stateless refugees to raise their statelessness during the asylum procedure. This is problematic as it assumes the person knows of, and can prove, their statelessness. There is also no agreed shared burden of proof between the individual and the DIS or SMA. Proving statelessness, can be very difficult for any stateless person. However, stateless