European Network on Statelessness publishes case study examining stateless Kurds from Syria seeking asylum in UK
A report published earlier this month by the European Network on Statelessness (ENS) examines the hurdles stateless applicants may face in establishing their country of origin within asylum procedures.
You can download the 33-page report here.
The report was researched and written by Thomas McGee, a PhD researcher in the Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness at Melbourne Law School.
Research for the report focused on the case study of stateless Kurds from Syria seeking asylum in the UK, though the author notes that many of the elements under study will be of transferable relevance for other stateless asylum seekers subject to 'disputed nationality/statelessness' consideration.
The report explains: "Three elements of the process of determining Country of Origin are explored with a view to considering the unique or heightened implications for stateless individuals: i) presentation of civil documentation ii) demonstration of local contextual awareness and iii) language analysis. Across these three areas, the report highlights the persistence of structural disadvantages stateless asylum seekers face in a system premised on prevalent norms associated with holding national citizenship. In other words, these processes tend - implicitly or explicitly - to assume that the applicant has a nationality and certain characteristics that adhere to having a formal legal relationship of belonging to a particular state."
As the author noted in an accompanying blog post, findings in the report indicate that Home Office decision makers sometimes dismiss from consideration the only documents a stateless Kurd would likely possess.
The report states: "While the civil documentation held by stateless persons may not be considered as constituting 'corroborating evidence' of the individual's Country of Origin claim, it is important that such documentation should be considered within the wider context of the claim being made. Indeed, established norms dictate that '[a] document should not be viewed in isolation. The decision maker should look at the evidence as a whole or in the round.' Further, Home Office guidance on credibility assessment states that 'It is not appropriate to attach little or no weight to a document without giving reasons based on the available evidence regarding its reliability.' However, based on a review of the casefiles of the eight stateless Kurdish claimants, there is little evidence that available civil documentation is being considered alongside other substantiating evidence. Noting the observations about the need for lower threshold of evidence to establish statelessness within analysis of the [Statelessness Determination Procedure (SDP)], it appears that a more balanced consideration of statelessness claims would better serve decision-making processes within the asylum process."
On issues around local contextual awareness, the report notes that Home Office questions are generally constructed upon assumptions that do not always apply to stateless individuals from the same country, especially those also belonging to minority communities whose cultural references may differ from that of the mainstream 'citizen' experience.
"The fact that stateless individuals may have different experiences - are less likely to have attended school and been exposed to prominent public discourses - means that their responses to such questions may not match the expectations corresponding to the ideal 'Syrian national' constructed by the Home Office through its practices of 'determining' Country of Origin," the report explains.
Language analysis is found to be particularly problematic, with the author noting that people affected by statelessness often live in border regions or are part of minority or trans-border communities, such as the Kurds.
The report highlights: "It is worth noting that the bureaucracy of the UK asylum system has also been significantly shaped by the large influx of Iraqi refugees in the early 1990s. This was demonstrated in the anecdotes of several interviewees who made asylum claims on the grounds of being from Syria being asked whether they preferred a Sorani or Badini interpreter - the two dialects spoken in Iraq, but not in Syria. Indeed, in one case, the fact that the applicant had opted for a Badini interpreter - the more similar of the two to the Kurmanci dialect spoken by Kurds in Syria - was held against him when the Home Office later pointed out that the individual had chosen a dialect that - according to available country information - is not spoken in Syria."
A number of recommendations are made in the report, which are intended to benefit both stateless asylum seekers and the decision makers considering their claims.