Case No. UKUT-00015-(IAC)

8. By order of Upper Tribunal Judge Blum dated 08 September 2015 permission to appeal was granted in the following terms: “It is arguable that the [FtT] failed to consider the possibility that a BOC may also be a stateless person and the legal impact that statelessness may have on an automatic deportation”. Regrettably, the appeal has progressed laboriously through the Upper Tribunal system. Having been listed speedily, at a hearing on 03 November 2015 this Tribunal, in the light of certain submissions made on the Appellants’ behalf, adjourned the appeal to enable the Appellants to make an application to the Secretary of State. As noted in our ruling dated 04 November 2015, the Secretary of State has not made any statelessness decision in the history of this case. The ruling stated: “ If the first Appellant considers that he is entitled to this status, he should make the appropriate application under the relevant regime of the Immigration Rules (paragraphs 401 – 403). ” The hearing of the appeal was adjourned accordingly. 9. The Appellants’ representatives delayed in making this application until 21 June 2016. This elicited a decision on behalf of the Secretary of State, dated 21 July 2016, refusing the Appellants’ application under paragraph 322(1B) of the Rules viz on the ground that he is the subject of a deportation order. Evidentially, the precise nature of the application made to the Secretary of State is unclear. However, what is clear is that the ensuing decision did not address the issue of statelessness at all. Given the appeal history, this was quite remarkable. This was followed by a case management review held on 13 September 2016 and, ultimately, the hearing of this appeal on 22 December 2016.