I completed a biodata interview and form with UKBA in relation to Mozambique and they have arranged an appointment for me with the Mozambique embassy but I still first need to be able to obtain the money to travel to London. I believe that it will be necessary for me to arrange formal appointments with the Zambian and Zimbabwean embassies because UKBA are unlikely to accept my account of telephone conversations. Only this way will I be able to establish if I have a nationality or a solution to my current situation. When I asked immigration officers what would happen next if these embassies did not accept me they said ‘It is your problem’. I find this frustrating as I am trying to cooperate with them.” Steven has been denied section 4 support178 and, at the time of his interview for the research, was destitute and sleeping at a homeless shelter. He has very limited resources with which to try to establish his nationality, lacking even the cost of a two hour train journey to London to attend interviews with relevant embassies. His perception of his situation and treatment is that: “They are happy to leave me in limbo because they know that I am not a risk to the public and they do not need to pay the cost of detaining me. They do not care how I support myself as this is not a consideration for them.” Other relevant UK caselaw exists, relating to how nationality ought to be assessed in the context of refugee status determination procedures. The Court of Appeal has outlined the standard of proof that an asylum applicant must meet if he or she is to show that their State of nationality will not provide appropriate travel documentation, as well as the evidence that an applicant is expected to produce to discharge the burden of proof. First of all, unlike other aspects of an asylum claim, the standard of proof is the “balance of probabilities”. Secondly, the Court recognised that in some circumstances it will not be appropriate to expect an asylum applicant to approach the consular authorities of their country of nationality to show that they are not prepared to re-document the applicant, as this might put the applicant or family members in the country of origin at risk. Thirdly, it has held that in a “normal case” the authorities can require the applicant “to act bona fide and take all reasonably practicable steps to seek to obtain the requisite documents to enable her to return”.179 Further, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Asylum and Immigration Tribunal have rejected a hierarchical approach to the sources of evidence in assessing nationality. A wide range of sources of evidence can be considered which include: (i) Relevant documentation. The relevant country of nationality may be established with documentation such as a passport or travel document. In Polivina (18441), in which a claimant was adjudged to be Croatian, possession of a passport was held to create a strong presumption of citizenship which could only be displaced by weighty evidence to the contrary. However, other items of documentation may be relevant, e.g. letters from relevant authorities in the country concerned or (as in the instant case) birth certificates in respect of countries that operate qualified or unqualified ius soli; (ii) The claimant. Where documentation is not available or admitted to be false, evidence from the claimant will be especially important. Relatives and friends may also have relevant evidence. Just because there is no documentary evidence to support the appellant`s claimed nationality is not fatal if his word is believed as to his nationality; 78 178 See Section 5.3. 179 M.A. (Ethiopia) v. SSHD, op. cit. paras. 49-50 and 78-83. Mapping statelessness