(Shelter Intervenor).278 In that case, the Court held that the Secretary of State’s failure to provide support and accommodation to an asylum seeker for whom there was no apparent alternative source of support constituted degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 ECHR. Consequently, section 55 could only be applied in cases where such an alternative means of support was proven to exist. This decision is based upon the premise that the asylum seeker cannot be expected to return to his or her country of origin in order to survive economically. The expectation of return was not appropriate because the outstanding asylum claim alleges that return would constitute a breach of the 1951 Convention, Article 33(1) or a breach of Article 3 ECHR in the country of origin. The importance of the fact that the applicant in Limbuela could not, lawfully, be expected to return to her country of origin because her asylum claim was outstanding, can be seen in subsequent litigation concerning a provision that empowered the Secretary of State to remove support from failed asylum-seekers who had dependent children.279 When the provision began to be used on a pilot basis, the Asylum Support Tribunal held that the withdrawal of support in these circumstances would not infringe Article 3 or Article 8 ECHR, because the support would be reinstated if the appellant showed that he or she was taking reasonable steps to leave the UK.280 An application for Judicial Review challenging both the Tribunal’s decision and the lawfulness of policy regime as a whole failed.281 In the cases of asylum-seekers whose claims had been considered, refused and whose appeal rights were exhausted, it was considered acceptable to make support conditional upon compliance with removal even if they had dependent children. The courts have yet to consider the application of Article 3 ECHR to the situation of destitute stateless persons on the UK territory. However, stateless persons share several similar characteristics to those of asylum-seekers. They are often vulnerable and, as a matter of fact rather than legal prohibition, are unable to leave the territory of their country of residence because no other State will admit them. It is therefore likely that Article 3 ECHR will be engaged where a stateless person is destitute, has no other means of support, and can be shown to be in a comparable position to asylum-seekers. 5.3.3 Relevant domestic provisions Most persons who are subject to immigration control in the UK are not entitled to state benefits (including social security).282 There are multiple exceptions to this rule. However, there is no exception that is expressly tailored to the situation of stateless or “unreturnable” persons. Consequently, in most cases, stateless or “unreturnable” persons will only be entitled to access a form of state benefit if they qualify by meeting one of the exceptions to the general rule. 278 Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant), ex parte Adam (FC) (Respondent); Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant), ex parte Limbuela (FC) (Respondent); Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant), ex parte Tesema (FC) (Respondent) (Conjoined Appeals), [2005] UKHL 66, United Kingdom: House of Lords (Judicial Committee), 3 November 2005, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/ docid/43fc2d1a0.html. 279 Immigration and Asylum (Treatment of Claimants) Act, 2004, section 9. 280 ASA 05/08/9824 and ASA 06/09/05. 281 See Willman, S. and Knapfler, S., Support for Asylum Seekers and other Migrants: A guide to legal and welfare rights, Legal Action Group, 2009. 282 Ibid., p. 118. in the United Kingdom 97