Canadian Federal Court of Appeal applies the test of well-founded fear of persecution on Convention grounds in any country of former habitual residence coupled with the inability or unwillingness to return to any of the countries where he or she formerly habitually resided, so as to discount any possible safe heavens. 102 In contrast, the German Federal Administrative Court considers the last country of habitual residence alone as being relevant, especially if the applicants spent a considerable number of years (e.g., 10 years) in that last country.103 Thus, for the German Federal Administrative Court, it is in principle sufficient to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to the last country of former habitual residence, and to be granted refugee status on that basis.104 The benefit of the doubt principle should then be applied with regard to all other countries to avoid possible risks of indirect refoulement. In sum, the key elements in any assessment of a claim to refugee status by a stateless person are no different from those applicable to claimants with a nationality, namely, a wellfounded fear of persecution attributable to the person’s country of former habitual residence for a reason listed in Article 1A(2), and whether or not they are able to or willing to return to it, in other words, whether protection is afforded there. How have the courts applied these elements to stateless persons? This paper now turns to landmark judicial decisions in selected jurisdictions on whether arbitrary deprivation of nationality, either on its own or when taken with other forms of harm, amounts to persecution within the meaning of Article 1A(2) Refugee Convention, and if so on what grounds. Relevant cases were primarily located on Refworld.105 The research was complemented with case law found on EDAL,106 and the IARLJ database.107 3 ARBITRARY DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY IN THE JURISPRUDENCE OF INTERNATIONAL COURTS International case law can be found in the regional systems for the protection of human rights. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Court of Justice of the European Union have all issued important judgments, decisions or opinions on nationality-related issues. This case law focuses mainly on issues of reparation and remedies for victims of violations of arbitrary Thabet v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 4 F.C. 21, Canada: Federal Court of Appeal, 11 May 1998, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/47bda9972.html [accessed 4 June 2013]. See also in Australia, case no. 0908992 [2010] RRTA 389, 14 May 2010, at para.127. This position is also that held by James C. Hathaway in The Law of Refugee Status, Butterworths, 1991, at p.62. 103 German Federal Administrative Court, 26 February 2009, 10C 50.07. 104 For a detailed analysis of what is ‘the country of former habitual residence’ in the doctrine, see New Zealand, Refugee Status Appeal Authority, Refugee Appeal No.1/92 Re SA, decision of 30 April 1992. 105 http://www.refworld.org 106 http://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu 107 https://www.iarlj.org/general/database 102 17