An Afghan migrant who was deemed an adult by UK authorities because he had a ‘protruding Adam’s apple’ has won £25,000 after an asylum judge ruled he was a child at the time.
The migrant – who came to Britain on a small boat – was awarded the payout after an immigration judge ruled that officials were wrong to conclude he was over 18.
The Afghan had a large Adam’s apple, bags under his eyes, and skin that ‘did not appear youthful’, a tribunal heard.
Official age assessors at St Helens Borough Council in Merseyside concluded he was therefore aged between 23 and 25 when he arrived.
But the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber has overturned that decision, ruling that the authorities had relied on ‘pseudoscientific indicators’.
The Upper Tribunal said the date of birth the Afghan gave was correct and found that he was 17 upon his arrival.
He was awarded £25,000 to cover his publicly-funded legal costs after winning his appeal.
The Upper Tribunal heard that the man, from an unnamed village in Afghanistan, told the Home Office he was born in 2005 when he arrived in the UK.
Age assessors at St Helens Borough Council found that the asylum seeker was aged between 23 and 25 in July 2024, disputing the date of birth he later claimed which was January 5 2007.
the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber has overturned that decision, ruling that the authorities had relied on ‘pseudoscientific indicators’
This would make him a child when he arrived in the country.
The Upper Tribunal heard he told council assessors ‘he was stressed and confused’ when he came to the UK and did not know what he was pointing to when he pointed at a date of birth of May 25 2005 on arrival.
He said he had not eaten in more than two days at that point and did not speak much English.
The tribunal judge accepted that he had not eaten for some period of time.
The migrant’s mother later told him his date of birth according to Afghanistan’s Pashto calendar over the phone – before that point, he said ‘dates of birth were just not important to him when he was in Afghanistan’.
The asylum seeker – who has been granted anonymity – had not gone to school because the one in his area had been ‘blown up in the war’.
The assessors found: ‘The [migrant]’s skin did not appear youthful. The [migrant] has established lines within features of his face that are common with maturity.
‘The [migrant] had bagginess in the upper and lower eye lined and bags. The [migrant]’s face also features established lines each side of his eyes, the nose to the corners of the mouth.
‘The [migrant] also has a protruding Adam’s apple and an established line on his neck that run from left to right. The [migrant]’s facial structure appears fully developed.
‘These features are consistent with a person who has exceed maturity, and more common with an adult and less likely features of a child under the age of eighteen years.
‘However, it is acknowledged that the [migrant]’s life in Afghanistan and journey to the UK could have had an impact on his physical development.’
They added that his ‘physical appearance and demeanour does not appear consistent with a person who has only recently commenced puberty’.
The asylum seeker said ‘he had fled Afghanistan because of his father having issues with the Taliban connected to his father’s role as a police officer’.
A tribunal judgment said that information from other sources ‘suggested that the [migrant] presented as younger than 18 years of age’.
At the judicial review held by the Upper Tribunal, Upper Tribunal Judge Abid Mahmood criticised the age assessment for relying on the migrant’s Adam’s apple as an indicator of his age, saying ‘an Adam’s apple adds very little in assessing whether [he] was above the age of 18’.
He added: ‘I did not observe lines on [his] face.’
The migrant arrived in the UK on a small boat (file photograph of migrants in the Channel)
Judge Mahmood said: ‘The judgment concludes that the local authority’s age assessment was procedurally unfair and substantively flawed.’
He noted that one of the ‘key deficiencies’ of the assessment was the ‘reliance on pseudoscientific indicators such as physical appearance without medical expertise’.
The judge also said the that evidence showed the migrant ‘tends to gravitate towards younger people in their mid to late teens but is uncomfortable with people in their 20s’.
The judge found that the man’s date of birth was the date he claimed, making him 18 years old now.
The judge said that there was not ‘an opportunity for the [migrant] to respond’ to the result of the council’s age assessment, and that not enough care was taken for his welfare.
The tribunal heard he was seen ‘shaking’ and ‘hitting his head on the table’ after he was informed of the result of the original age assessment.
The judge concluded that St Helens Borough Council will pay for his legal costs, which were publicly-funded.
They said: ‘The [council] shall pay the [migrant]’s costs on the standard basis. Such costs to be assessed by way of detailed assessment, if not agreed.
‘There shall be detailed assessment of the [migrant]’s publicly funded costs.’
The migrant’s asylum claim is being considered separately.
