Judge Overturns Age Assessment in Landmark Asylum Case
A Sudanese migrant has successfully won his age dispute case after an immigration judge ruled he was a child, contradicting earlier assessments by UK authorities that deemed him to be 24 years old. The case centred around whether the asylum seeker's physical appearance accurately reflected his age.
The Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber heard that when the migrant arrived in Britain, authorities believed he was significantly older than his claimed age of 15 due to his mature physical demeanour, defined bone structure and jawline.
The Evidence Presented in Court
Age assessors working on behalf of Westminster City Council had initially concluded the migrant was likely 24, citing his visible receding hairline and deep voice as evidence of his maturity. They noted his prominent Adam's apple and overall physical appearance suggested someone in their twenties.
The migrant, referred to anonymously as MM, maintained throughout that he was born in 2009 and was therefore 15 years old. He explained he had travelled from Sudan alone and that both his parents remained living there. Unfortunately, he lacked any identity documents to support his claim when first assessed.
Westminster City Council rejected his assertion, stating he was much older than 15. This initial assessment would have made him 25 years old at the date of the tribunal hearing.
Cultural Context and Documentary Evidence
When the case progressed, the migrant obtained photographs of his birth certificate and Sudanese Civil Registration Certificate, which his mother had sent to him electronically. These documents supported his claim of being born in 2009, though he had provided slightly different dates during initial interviews.
An expert on Sudanese culture testified that remembering exact birth dates isn't common in Sudan's cultural context, which could explain the minor inconsistencies in his account. The poor quality of the document photographs was also addressed, with the court accepting that sending original documents from his region to the UK would be difficult.
Upper Tribunal Judge Melissa Canavan noted that cultural heritage and traumatic experiences could account for both his physical appearance and demeanour. She highlighted that his journey to the UK and the trauma associated with it could make someone appear more mature than their actual age.
Courtroom Behaviour and Final Ruling
During tribunal proceedings, the migrant was observed doodling in his notebook and had to be asked to concentrate when answering questions. Judge Canavan interpreted this behaviour as demonstrating the immaturity of a young person who didn't fully grasp the situation's importance.
In her ruling, Judge Canavan stated: 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. She concluded that the evidence indicated he was more likely to be his stated age of 16 at the hearing date.
As a result of this ruling, Westminster City Council has been ordered to pay the migrant's legal costs. This case follows a similar ruling last month where a Syrian migrant with a receding hairline and grey hair won his age dispute case after a judge determined he was 16 rather than an adult.
