134 Swider and den Heijer country or another Member State), and if that other country is willing to admit that person and accord him the standard of treatment required by the 1954 Convention.121 UNHCR submits that in such cases, the status to be provided can be ‘more transitional in nature’.122 In some Member States where statelessness is a ground for residence, being admissible to the country of former habitual residence is a ground for refusing residence. The Stateless Determination Procedure introduced in 2013 in the United Kingdom includes as a requirement for leave to remain that the applicant ‘is not admissible to their country of former habitual residence or any other country’.123 The additional requirement of ‘any other country’ is, however, problematic, as it opens up the possibility of removing persons to random countries with which they do not necessarily have a meaningful connection.124 It is suggested, therefore, that excludability, public order considerations and being admissible to the country of former habitual residence are included as grounds for refusing a right of residence, without preventing recognition as stateless person. A further issue is whether States should be compelled to grant residence to individuals who became stateless as a result of voluntary renunciation of nationality. In some States, such persons are excluded from the status of stateless person.125 Voluntary renunciation of nationality is, however, not a relevant element in the definition of a stateless person.126 Therefore, voluntary renunciation should not play a role at the stage of determination of status, but it may be relevant in examining whether the former country of nationality is willing to reinstate the person’s nationality or to admit him on some other basis.127 It follows that the question of voluntary renunciation should primarily inform 121 Cf. UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (Geneva, UNHCR, 2014), para 153–157. 122  Ibid., para 153. 123 United Kingdom Immigration Rules, para 403(c). 124 In the refugee context, the EU Asylum Procedures Directive permits removal to a safe third country only if there is ‘a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned on the basis of which it would be reasonable for that person to go to that country’: Art. 38(2)(a) Directive 2013/32/EU. 125 See, for example, the statelessness determination procedure in Hungary, Act II of 2007 on the Admission and Right of Residence of Third-Country Nationals, Section 78(1)b. 126 See also UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (Geneva, UNHCR, 2014), para 51. 127 Cf. The Stateless Guidance published by the United Kingdom on 1 May 2013, para. 3.4, which sets forth that ‘[t]here is no obligation to grant leave to remain to those who have become stateless for reasons of personal convenience or choice.’ European Journal of Migration and Law 19 (2017) 101–135