refused entry because they had been deprived of their nationality arbitrarily, the courts found this to constitute discrimination amounting to persecution.. This is the case, for instance, of UK case law on undocumented Bidoons, which considers the issue of whether denial of return to Kuwait constitutes persecution, to be a question of fact. It accepts that ‘documented’ and ‘undocumented’ are not synonymous terms for the distinction between ‘registered’ and ‘unregistered’, because some Bidoons may have obtained false passports. As further discussed in the next section, in all cases where the Kuwaiti Bidoons have been able to provide evidence of their statelessness and undocumented status,248 the denial of the right of return was found to constitute persecution based on the seriousness of the effects of this denial in the country of return.249 4.2. (Arbitrary) Deprivation of nationality and persecution This section considers the situation of an asylum seeker who is unwilling to return to his or her country of habitual residence because of persecution resulting from the deprivation of nationality. It is therefore interested in the argument and courts’ ruling on whether deprivation of nationality can amount to persecution, independently from considerations of re-entry and ability to return. Here domestic courts have focused primarily on the causes and consequences of the deprivation or denial of nationality:250 Why did the state authorities deny the appellant’s claim to citizenship, and what are the consequences of such denial? UK courts have long recognized that, in some circumstances, deprivation of nationality may amount to persecution within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention (taken together with Article 9 of the EU Qualification Directive), if the act of deprivation or revocation can be said to be a willful denial of nationality for a ‘capricious or discriminatory reason’ and, the denial is for a Refugee Convention reason.251 However, the requirement of ‘willful denial of nationality’ is not met where the deprivation/revocation is the result of a mistake or an error of interpretation of the legislation by the authority.252 In other words, there exist many instances in which the authorities have a policy, which is or appears to be at odds with the text of the law; if intentional, the act of deprivation would constitute persecution, but if not intentional, the traditional rule that State authorities have significant discretion to decide who is eligible for nationality would apply. Note that following NM (documented/undocumented Bidoon: risk) Kuwait CG [2013] UKUT 00356(IAC), the key distinction between documented and undocumented Bidoons established in BA [2004] UKIAT 00256 and HE [2006] UKAIT 00051 is maintained, but the relevant crucial document, upon which depends a range of benefits, is the security card (or green card) rather than the civil identification card. The security card identifies the holder with names, address and birth date, but does not serve as proof of identity; it must be renewed yearly or every two years. The evidence shows that possession of a security card is crucial for potentially accessing civil documents, and therefore a whole range of benefits. 249 BA and others (Bedoon-statelessness-risk of persecution) Kuwait CG [2004] UKIAT 00256, and HE (Bidoonstatelessness-risk of persecution) Kuwait CG [2006] UKAIT 00051 – which applies BA 2004. 250 E.g., UKCA EB (Ethiopia) 2007, para.54: ‘An analysis is required of the circumstances including the loss of rights involved in the particular case and the causes and consequences of them’. 251 JV (Tanzania) v SSHD UKCA 2007, paras.6 and 10. See also Lazarevic v SSHD, [1997] EWCA Civ 1007. 252 JV (Tanzania) v SSHD UKCA 2007, para.10. 248 44