Statelessness Convention and meaning of "admissible"

The Upper Tribunal has reported its judgment in R (AZ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (statelessness "admissible") [2021] UKUT 284 (IAC).

The issue before the Upper Tribunal concerned proper interpretation of the word "admissible" in Rule 403(c) and the objectives of the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons 1954. The Claimant, AZ, who arrived in the United Kingdom from Kuwait on an "Article 17" travel document, challenged a decision made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse her application for leave to remain as a stateless person. Dismissing the Judicial Review claim, the Upper Tribunal came to this conclusion on the issue of law:

  1. The word "admissible" must mean in the context of paragraph 403(c) the ability to enter lawfully and reside lawfully. "Admissible" does not incorporate the concept of "permanent residence".
  2. The Statelessness Convention does not impose a requirement on contracting parties to grant either permanent residence or citizenship.
Zane Malik QC appeared for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

The Upper Tribunal's judgment is available here.