It is reported that an immigration court has
deemed a Sudanese asylum seeker as a minor even though he had a ‘deep voice’ and ‘very hairy legs.’
It is claimed that the court’s ruling overturned a previous judgment.
Home Office
And according to the council’s evaluation, they stated that his physical appearance indicated he was “likely well over 18” and estimated him to be approximately 24 years old.
However, the higher section of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber reportedly asserted that these characteristics were not considered ‘helpful signs’ of someone’s age and supported the asylum seeker’s assertion that he was 16 years old.
The Telegraph
it was reported that the asylum seeker was described as having ‘hands that look very mature with thick hair on his arms,’ a ‘deep voice,’ a ‘face that appears very mature along with a beard,’ a ‘hairline that is receding,’ and a ‘noticeable Adam’s apple.’
It was also mentioned that the court learned about his “pronounced and deep forehead creases which persist even without any facial expressions.”
The asylum seeker, whose identity was kept confidential during the proceedings, was apparently checked by social workers upon their arrival in the UK, with officials stating they thought he was an adult.
It was claimed that “negligence” occurred during that particular visit. Nevertheless, the court sided with a subsequent evaluation indicating he was 16 at the time of arrival in the country, enhancing his prospects for obtaining asylum.
In December 2023, an asylum seeker reached the United Kingdom and informed Home Office representatives that his birthdate was September 20, 2007.
He mentioned that he escaped from Sudan because of the warfare raging in the nation and expressed fear about being abducted, similar to what happened to three of his acquaintances.
The asylum seeker mentioned that both his mother and his teachers at school informed him about his date of birth. The tribunal confirmed that this information remained ‘consistent’ during the entire proceedings.
Upper Tribunal Judge Gemma Loughran stated: “We have recalled the significance of not placing undue emphasis on physical traits; however, after examining the photographs, we concur that they do not back up their claims. We also disagree with the assertion that the asylum seeker has an exceptionally mature-looking face.”
‘It is clear from the photographs that the [asylum seeker] did not have a beard or indeed any visible facial hair at all. We also note that the photograph of the applicant attached to the ‘Age Assessment Self-Referral Form’ does not show the [asylum seeker] as having any visible facial hair.
‘We are not persuaded thick hair on a person’s arms and legs is a useful indicator of age. We accept he has lines on his forehead. However, we do not consider they are either ‘significant’ or ‘particularly deep’. Accordingly, we do not find we are assisted by [the] observations of [his] physical appearance.’
Social workers last year made an assessment of the asylum seeker and found he was the age he had claimed to be.
The social workers stated: “Given the data at hand, we conclude that the substantial evidence backs [the asylum seeker’s] asserted age.”
We acknowledge that other professional assessments consider him to be older than 18 years. Nonetheless, much of this evidence is not reliable because of its nature or the opaque methods used during collection, which is why we cannot assign substantial importance to these evaluations.
‘During our evaluation interview, we did not gather substantial evidence suggesting that [the asylum seeker] was older than he claimed. We also managed to tackle certain issues mentioned in earlier evaluations, which [the asylum seeker] addressed with confidence and competence to clarify.’
Upper Tier Tribunal Judge Loughran stated: “Regarding our evaluation, the applicant’s outward appearance holds minimal significance for our broader responsibilities; however, we do not believe that the asylum seeker’s physical looks offer substantial evidence supporting the respondent’s assertion that he is eight years older than what was declared.”
The Home Office and the council’s evaluation that he was an adult has been overturned following the revelation that the asylum seeker’s date of birth is actually September 20, 2007.
The council will now bear the expenses associated with the claim for judicial review.
Read more
