Jordan. However, their Palestinian background was, as such, not questioned and they were recorded as stateless. Only one of the decisions made in respect of persons recorded as having “unknown” nationality raised a question as to why the person’s nationality had been indicated as “unknown” and whether there was a possibility that the person was actually stateless.78 The decision concerned a child who was born in Sweden to a woman who was determined to possibly be of Somali nationality, and in any case of Somali origin. The decision mentioned that the child’s father was a Somali national, but that he did not live in Sweden. It was, however, not mentioned if the mother and father were married. The asylum claim of the child was assessed with regard to Somalia, while the decision contained no specific explanation or assessment in regard to the child’s nationality and why it was considered as “unknown”. The child was granted asylum and refugee status in Sweden. In the asylum decisions reviewed, the applicants’ statelessness and country of former habitual residence was generally not questioned. In the cases concerning stateless applicants from places other than Gaza, i.e. Palestinians from Algeria, Iraq and Jordan and a Bidoon from Kuwait, their claims were directly related to the applicants’ lack of a nationality and therefore their difficult situations and limited enjoyment of rights in the former countries of habitual residence. In all these cases, the SMA concluded that the fact that the person was stateless in his or her country of former habitual residence did not as such amount to persecution or constitute a ground for subsidiary protection or for another type of status. The extent of the assessment concerning the person’s rights as stateless in the country of former habitual residence, including his or her possibility to acquire a nationality, varied. In some of the cases, the assessment was rather comprehensive, while in others, the limitations on access to rights because of the person’s statelessness were not assessed at all. In a decision from 2008, the Migration Court of Appeal assessed to what extent statelessness should be considered as a possible human rights violation and form a ground, or a cumulative ground, for persecution.79 The applicant, a stateless Kurd from Syria, sought asylum in Sweden on the ground that she could not return to Syria because she would risk being subjected to torture and other degrading treatment, and because it would not be possible for her to return due to the fact that she was not a national of Syria. She had participated in a demonstration for the rights of Kurds, and been detained as a result. During the detention, she was harassed and assaulted. The asylum application was rejected by the SMA, which did not consider it likely that the applicant would face further persecution, and thus concluded that she would be able to return to Syria. The applicant appealed the decision to the Migration Court. The SMA, in response to this, accepted the appeal to the extent that it considered that the applicant was likely to be a stateless Maktoum (Arabic for “unregistered”) Kurd from Syria and that her membership of that group alone could form a ground for granting her refugee status. The Migration Court, however, rejected the appeal. The Migration Court agreed with the SMA’s finding that it was likely that the applicant was a stateless Maktoum Kurd from Syria. The first question the Court addressed was whether the applicant, based solely on her membership of that group, was in need of international protection. The Court noted that in such an assessment, the assumption is that only in exceptional circumstances can an asylum-seeker be granted a residence permit based solely on his 78 In the majority of these cases, the uncertainty regarding the nationality was a result of information pointing towards two or more countries of which the person possibly could have been a national, due to conflicting information regarding the country of origin; due to a language test indicating a different country of nationality than claimed; or when two countries had been considered with regard to the refugee claim when the applicant claims to be a national of one country and the SMA considers another country as the possible or likely country of origin. In the cases where the claim was assessed with regard to two countries and where the asylum applications were rejected, the two countries were also determined as countries of return. In all of these cases it appeared relatively clear that the person had at least one nationality; none of the persons had claimed not to have a nationality at all. 79 MIG 2008: 21 (“Enbart den omständigheten att en person är statslös, tillhörande gruppen maktoumeen, innebär inte att personen ifråga kan anses vara flykting enligt 4 kap. 1 § utlänningslagen utan en individuell prövning i det enskilda fallet måste göras.”), available at: https://lagen.nu/dom/mig/2008: 21. UNHCR STOCKHOLM, 2016 27