country of origin, in particular relating to the renunciation or loss of nationality and analyzes the situation in the country of origin. If neither the Border Guard service nor the Office for Foreigners can unequivocally establish the nationality or determine definitively that the applicant is stateless, it is established that the country of nationality is unknown. In this context, the Office for Foreigners has underlined that foreigners tend to provide the authorities with misleading information concerning personal details, including country of origin, in order to get the “right” result of the proceedings.83 However, when asked about the number of “accelerated procedures”84 that are conducted where the applicant provided misleading information through omission or provided false information or documents concerning identity or citizenship of vital importance to granting protection,85 the Office for Foreigners replied that there were only four such cases in the period analyzed.86 The overall number of applicants recorded as stateless or of unknown nationality for that period87 amounted to 55, while the total number of applicants for that period was 19,323. The Office for Foreigners also highlighted that difficulties with establishing identity concern mainly applicants coming from Africa, the Middle East and Asia (especially those speaking Arabic, Persian, Tajik, Dari, Pashto and African languages). This group was therefore described in very wide terms.88 The biggest challenge identified was the lack of a specialized unit dealing with language analyses. 3.3.2 Identifying stateless persons in return proceedings 3.3.2.1 INITIATING THE PROCEDURE The fact that a person is stateless may also be established within the return proceedings applied to foreigners staying irregularly in Poland. The return proceedings are conducted within the framework of an administrative procedure. Therefore, as a general rule, the Code of Administrative Procedure applies. Commanding Officers of the Border Guards Posts and Units are the competent authority for conducting return proceedings. The procedure is decentralized (as a rule, the actual Post or Unit is chosen based on the place of stay or apprehension of the person concerned). The outcome of return proceedings may either be a return decision or a decision on granting tolerated stay to an “unreturnable” migrant. Depending on the interpretation of the law, this can be the result of a return proceeding from the onset or the result of a two-fold procedure.89 30 83 Information provided by the Office for Foreigners. 84 Proceedings in case the claim is manifestly unfounded. 85 Article 39(1)(2) of the Act on Protection. 86 There have been four cases since January until June 2016, concerning citizens of Armenia, Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova. There were no such cases in 2015. 87 1 January 2015 – 30 June 2016. 88 No precise information was provided as to their exact origin. 89 As explained below, the wording of the law leaves space for interpretation in relation to the outcome of return proceedings. The interpretation of the legal provisions may be two-fold. According to the first reading of the law, once the return proceedings are initiated the possibility of return should be verified from the outset. No prospect of removal should result in granting the tolerated stay permit. According to the second interpretation, the law requires that first a return decision has to be issued. Once it is in force, the competent authorities should undertake efforts to enforce it. Only when it is not enforceable, a second procedure is initiated with a view of granting the tolerated stay permit (it is based on the assumption that only the existing decision can be unenforceable). MAPPING STATELESSNESS IN POLAND