R (on the application of AZ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (statelessness ‘admissible’) [2021] UKUT 00284 (IAC)

Heard by Upper Tribunal Judge Owens; decision promulgated 22 September 2021. The applicant, a Kuwaiti Bidoon holding a valid Article 17 travel document, applied for leave to remain in the UK as a stateless person under paragraph 403 of the Immigration Rules — a route distinct from asylum, engaged where a person is stateless but has not necessarily claimed a well-founded fear of persecution. The Secretary of State refused on the basis the applicant was 'admissible' to Kuwait under paragraph 403(c), defeating the claim regardless of her statelessness. The sole ground of judicial review was that the Secretary of State's interpretation of 'admissible' was unlawful.

THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPLICATION. Reviewing conflicting Court of Appeal authority (JM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 188) and a prior Upper Tribunal decision (JM (statelessness) [2015] UKUT 00676 (IAC)), Judge Owens held that 'admissible' in paragraph 403(c) means the ability to enter AND RESIDE lawfully — more than mere physical entry, but not necessarily permanent residence. Applying that test, the Secretary of State was rationally entitled to find the applicant admissible: she held a valid Article 17 document on which she had previously travelled in and out of Kuwait like any other lawfully resident alien, had lived there long-term, and had obtained education and employment in Kuwait in her own identity, with no evidence of any refused attempt to obtain Kuwaiti nationality.

USE IN A REPORT: the controlling authority on how 'admissible' is assessed for a documented Bidoon client considering the Part 14/paragraph 403 stateless-persons route as an alternative or supplement to an asylum claim — a still-valid Article 17 document, a history of lawful travel on it, and settled residence/employment/education in Kuwait will likely be fatal to this specific route even where statelessness itself is accepted, distinct from (and not a substitute for) the asylum-route risk analysis in NM/HE/BA.

The key authority for assessing whether the Part 14 stateless-persons route is realistically available to a documented Bidoon client — a genuinely different legal question from asylum risk, and one worth screening for before relying on it as a fallback.