A Sudanese migrant with a “receding hairline and deep voice” has won an age case after an immigration judge ruled he was 15. Authorities in Britain believed the asylum seeker was 24 when he arrived because of his ‘mature physical demeanour, defined bone structure and jawline’, a tribunal heard.
The migrant, who insisted he was 15, “appeared older” because of his a “distinct jaw line” and a “prominent Adam’s apple”, as well as his “deep voice”. Age assessors said that he was ‘much older’ than 15 and that he had the demeanour and ‘maturity’ of someone in their 20s.
The assessment carried out by Westminster City Council upon his arrival in the UK rejected his claims that he was 15 and stated that he was 24 years old.
However, the Sudanese migrant appealed and has now won an age case at the asylum court.
Upper Tribunal Judge Melissa Canavan said that despite evidence of multiple experts placing him as older than 15, it was his cultural heritage that gave him his physical attributes, and the journey to the UK he had endured that made his demeanour more ‘mature’.
The Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber heard that the Sudanese man arrived in the UK and was sleeping rough with a friend until they went to a police station.
The migrant, who was given anonymity and referred to as MM, stated that his date of birth was May 15, 2009, as recorded during the initial age assessment.
He said that he had travelled from Sudan, and his mother and father were still living there.
He said he was born in 2009 and was 15, but he did not have any identity documents with him.
Westminster City Council rejected his claim, saying he was ‘much older’.
The tribunal heard: “Westminster City Council conducted a Brief Enquiry on June 10, 2024 (‘the first age assessment’). The notes record that M told the assessors that his date of birth was May 15, 2009.
“The age assessment concluded that he was older than his claimed age of 15 years old and was likely to be 24 years old.
“The reasons were that M “appeared older” than his claimed age because his “mature physical demeanour, defined bone structure and jawline.”
“He also had a ‘visible receding hairline and a deep voice.’ It seems that no date of birth was allocated. This assessment would make him 25 years old at the date of the hearing.”
A further age assessment was carried out by Hammersmith and Fulham Council when the migrant was moved to adult accommodation.
At this stage, he had been sent a photograph of his birth certificate and his Sudanese Civil Registration Certificate (CRC) to show to the assessors.
He stated that his date of birth was April 25, 2009, which was consistent with his birth certificate, but differed from what he had initially reported during the age assessment.
The second assessment concluded that the first assessment was correct and that the migrant was 24, as he was “very confident” during the interview and “expressed no emotion when talking about having to leave his parents”.
An expert on Sudanese culture said that the day and month someone is born was not commonly recorded in Sudan, and so his inconsistency in remembering it could be due to the culture.
Judge Canavan said: “The fact that M might have remembered the day and month of his birth incorrectly is not so undermining of his credibility when considered in the context of his noted exhaustion at the interview and in the cultural context.”
Questions were raised about his birth certificate and whether it could have been tampered with.
The identity documents that he produced were “poor quality” photographs that he said his mother had sent to him.
The judge accepted it was valid.
During the tribunal, the migrant was seen “doodling” in his notebook and had to be asked to “concentrate” when being asked questions.
Judge Canavan said this demonstrated the ‘immaturity’ of a young person because he did not understand the importance of the situation.
Judge Canavan said that the migrant had provided evidence through the documentation that he was a child and had suffered trauma from travelling to the UK, which could be the cause of his demeanour.
He said: “The images of M’s birth certificate and CRC are not the best evidence of his age because he has been unable to produce the original documents.
“In light of [expert] evidence, and what is known about the situation in the region where M comes from, it is plausible that it would be difficult to send the original documents to the UK by post.
“As such, electronic images might have been the only realistic way to convey the information to the UK.
“The weight of the evidence does not support the conclusions contained in the first and second age assessments, that M was likely to be as old as 24 years old.”
The judge added: “For the reasons given above, I conclude that the weight of the evidence now indicates that M is more likely to be his stated age of 16 years old at the date of the [tribunal] hearing.”
Westminster City Council will have to pay the migrant’s legal costs.
Details about his asylum status are not known.
