Immigration court docket dominated a Sudanese asylum seeker with a deep voice and ‘very furry legs’ was once a kid as bodily attributes are ‘now not an invaluable indicator for age’

An immigration court docket has reportedly dominated a Sudanese asylum seeker as a kid in spite of him having a ‘deep voice’ and ‘very furry legs’.

The determination is claimed to have overruled a Home Office and council review who had claimed his bodily look ‘very strongly advised’ he was once ‘considerably over 18’ and that he was once prone to be round 24.

But the higher tier of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber allegedly claimed those weren’t ‘helpful signs’ of an individual’s age and sponsored the asylum seeker’s claims that he was once elderly 16.

The Telegraph reported that the asylum seeker was once mentioned to have ‘very mature arms with thick hair on his palms’, a ‘deep voice’, a ‘very mature face and beard’, a ‘receding hairline’ and a ‘pronounced Adam’s apple’.

They additionally say the court docket heard he had ‘vital and deep traces on brow that stay even if he isn’t making facial actions’.

The asylum seeker, who was once granted anonymity within the listening to, was once reportedly visited by way of social products and services after arriving in the United Kingdom who mentioned they believed he was once an grownup.

However, it was once alleged that there was once a ‘loss of care’ on this seek advice from and the court docket as an alternative agreed with a later review which discovered he was once 16 years outdated when he got here to the rustic, boosting his possibilities of securing asylum.

The asylum seeker arrived in the United Kingdom in December 2023 and advised Home Office officers he was once born on September 20, 2007.

The court docket’s determination is claimed to have overruled a Home Office and council review who had claimed his bodily look ‘very strongly advised’ he was once ‘considerably over 18’ and that he was once prone to be round 24 (Stock Image)

The higher tier of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber allegedly mentioned those attributes weren’t ‘helpful signs’ of an individual’s age and sponsored the asylum seeker’s declare that he was once elderly 16 (Stock Image)

He mentioned he fled Sudan because of struggle within the nation and that he was once afraid he could be abducted like 3 of his buddies had been.

The asylum seeker mentioned his mom and lecturers at his college advised him his date of start, which the tribunal discovered was once ‘constant’ all over the listening to.

Upper Tribunal Judge Gemma Loughran mentioned: ‘We have reminded ourselves of the significance of now not over-emphasising bodily traits, however in any tournament having reviewed [photographs] we’re happy they don’t enhance their conclusions. We don’t agree that the [asylum seeker] ‘has an overly mature face’.

‘It is obvious from the pictures that the [asylum seeker] didn’t have a beard or certainly any visual facial hair in any respect. We additionally be aware that the {photograph} of the applicant connected to the ‘Age Assessment Self-Referral Form’ does now not display the [asylum seeker] as having any visual facial hair.

‘We don’t seem to be persuaded thick hair on an individual’s legs and arms is an invaluable indicator of age. We settle for he has traces on his brow. However, we don’t imagine they’re both ‘vital’ or ‘in particular deep’. Accordingly, we don’t to find we’re assisted by way of [the] observations of [his] bodily look.’

Social staff remaining 12 months made an review of the asylum seeker and located he was once the age he had claimed to be. 

The asylum seeker mentioned his mom and lecturers at his college advised him his date of start, which the tribunal discovered was once ‘constant’ all over the listening to (Stock Image)

The social staff mentioned: ‘Based at the knowledge to be had, we consider that the overpowering proof helps [the asylum seeker’s] claimed age.

‘We recognise that different skilled judgments have deemed him to be over 18 years of age. However, maximum of this proof is unreliable because of its content material or loss of transparency regarding the processes undertaken when accumulating this data, due to this fact we’re not able to provide their judgments vital weighting.

‘There was once no vital proof amassing throughout our review interview that indicated [the asylum seeker] was once older than his claimed age and we had been in a position to handle one of the crucial considerations raised within the earlier exams, which [the asylum seeker] optimistically and competently elaborated directly to get to the bottom of.’

Upper Tier Tribunal Judge Loughran added: ‘In phrases of our review, the applicant’s bodily look is of little worth to our general job, however we don’t imagine that the [asylum seeker]’s bodily look supplies subject matter enhance for the respondent’s conclusion that he’s 8 years older than his claimed age.’

The Home Office and council’s review that he was once an grownup were pushed aside after the asylum seeker’s date of start was once declared as September 20, 2007.

The council will now foot the prices of the declare for judicial assessment.