22. However, the UK’s failure to recognise statelessness as a protection issue means that for statelessness applications, there is neither a free-standing right of appeal to the independent First Tier Tribunal, nor free legal assistance (unless ‘exceptional case funding’ is granted).50 Both of these safeguards are available in the asylum and complementary protection context. The potentially available limited remedies for refusal under the stateless determination procedure (administrative review, judicial review, or a new application) are inadequate. Internal administrative review51 may be subject to the same flaws as initial decision making, and there is no legal aid for administrative review. Although legal aid currently is available for judicial review of refusal of statelessness applications, judicial review is limited in the scope of its review of the facts. New applications will often not succeed if negative credibility assessments were made in the initial flawed proceeding or if a similar flawed approach is taken in a new decision. 23. Statelessness applications are often factually and legally complex and require specialist legal advice. The possibility of exceptional case funding is not an adequate alternative to standard legal aid, because legal advisors must undertake a significant amount of work to apply for it, for which they receive limited remuneration only if exceptional case funding is granted, and many legal advisors cannot take that risk. We are aware of only one case in which exceptional case funding has been granted for a statelessness application. Advocacy for statelessness applications to be included under legal aid have been unsuccessful thus far.52 24. The absence of legal aid and appeal rights are compounded by a low success rate and substantial delays in decision making (more than 3 years in some cases).53 By the end of March 2016, only 754 (47.4%) of 1,592 statelessness applications made since April 2013 had been decided, and only 39 granted (5.2 % of decided applications).54 Additionally, there are significant errors in Home Office decision making.55 50 See Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) (2012 Chapter 10) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/10/contents/enacted. 51 Limited to ‘caseworking errors’. 52 For further information about legal aid and barriers to it, particularly if a ‘residence test’ becomes applicable, see Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, ‘ILPA evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ enquiry into the implications for access to justice of the Government's proposed legal aid changes 30 September 2013’, Document No. 13.09.21039, http://www.ilpa.org.uk/resources.php/21039/ilpa-evidence-to-the-jointcommittee-on-human-rights-enquiry-into-the-implications-for-access-to-jus. 53 Whilst awaiting a decision, stateless persons usually do not have permission to work (or be self-employed) and access to support is limited. 54 Data provided by the UK Home Office (Statelessness Review Unit, Complex Case Directorate) to Katia Bianchini (ENS consultant researcher) in an email dated 21 June 2016 during research for the European Network on Statelessness report 'Protecting Stateless Persons from Arbitrary Detention in the United Kingdom' (note 44). 55 Examples of flawed decisions (based on the experiences of Asylum Aid and Liverpool Law Clinic) include: 1) refusal after granting another type of status (with much shorter period of leave), on basis that applicant was ‘admissible’ to the UK as a result of the other status; 2) 2013 refusal without interview – contravening Government’s 2013 guidance; 3) refusal without adequate investigation with authorities of country of alleged nationality (even after, in accordance with its guidance, Government agreed to investigate). The 2016 guidance (note 14, Section 4.2) states that where an applicant has sought to provide as much information as possible, Home Office caseworkers ‘must assist the applicant by interviewing them, undertaking relevant research and, if necessary, making enquiries with the relevant authorities and organisations’. Additionally, in the case of Semeda v Secretary of State for the Home Department (statelessness; Pham [2015] UKSC 19 applied) [2015] UKUT 658 (21 October 2015), the Tribunal found that the Government improperly refused leave to remain on basis that applicant had a ‘claim’ to Libyan nationality (under the Immigration Rules, nationality must be assessed as at the time of the decision, rather than with respect to future possibilities). But cf R (JM) v SSHD (Statelessness: Part 14 of HC 395) [2015] UKUT 00676 (IAC) (22 September 2015), in which the Tribunal 10