Tribunal decisions

The decision

JR-2024-LON-001336

In the Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Judicial Review

In the matter of an application for Judicial Review

The King on the application of

YII
(Anonymity Order made)

Applicant

and

The City of Doncaster Council

Respondent

ORDER

BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Jackson & Upper Tribunal Judge Hirst

HAVING considered all documents lodged and having heard Mr C Buckley of Counsel, instructed by Bhatia Best Solicitors, for the Applicant and Mr S Pallo of Counsel, instructed by the City of Doncaster Council, for the Respondent at a hearing on 20 December 2024 and with further written closing submissions lodged on 10 January 2025.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The application for judicial review is dismissed for the reasons in the attached judgment.

(2) The Applicant’s date of birth is 28 May 2004.

(3) The Applicant to pay the Respondent’s costs to be subject to detailed assessment. The Applicant having the benefit of cost protection under section 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the amount the Applicant is to pay shall be determined on an application by the Respondent under Regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013. Any objection by the Applicant to the amount of costs claimed shall be dealt with on that occasion.

(4) There shall be a detailed assessment of the Applicant’s publicly funded costs.

(5) No application for permission to appeal was made. In any event, permission to appeal is refused because the decision does not disclose any arguable errors of law.

Signed: G Jackson

Upper Tribunal Judge Jackson

Dated: 18th March 2025

The date on which this order was sent is given below

For completion by the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Sent / Handed to the applicant, respondent and any interested party / the applicant's, respondent’s and any interested party’s solicitors on (date): 19/03/2025

Solicitors:
Ref No.
Home Office Ref:

Notification of appeal rights

A decision by the Upper Tribunal on an application for judicial review is a decision that disposes of proceedings.

A party may appeal against such a decision to the Court of Appeal on a point of law only. Any party who wishes to appeal should apply to the Upper Tribunal for permission, at the hearing at which the decision is given. If no application is made, the Tribunal must nonetheless consider at the hearing whether to give or refuse permission to appeal (rule 44(4B) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008).

If the Tribunal refuses permission, either in response to an application or by virtue of rule 44(4B), then the party wishing to appeal can apply for permission from the Court of Appeal itself. This must be done by filing an appellant’s notice with the Civil Appeals Office of the Court of Appeal within 28 days of the date the Tribunal’s decision on permission to appeal was sent (Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 52D 3.3).

Case No: JR-2024-LON-001336
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR

18th March 2025
Before:

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JACKSON
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HIRST

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

THE KING
on the application of
YII
(Anonymity Order Made)
Applicant
- and -

CITY OF DONCASTER COUNCIL
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr C Buckley of Counsel
(instructed by Bhatia Best Solicitors), for the Applicant

Mr S Pallo of Counsel
(instructed by City of Doncaster Council) for the Respondent

Hearing date: 20 December 2024

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ANONYMITY ORDER

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Applicant is granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the Applicant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the Applicant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

Judge Jackson:

1. The Applicant is a national of Sudan who arrived in the United Kingdom on a small boat on 23 October 2023. The Applicant claims that he was born on 28 May 2006, such that he was aged 17 on arrival. On 24 October 2023, when screened following his arrival, the Home Office recorded the Applicant’s date of birth as 28 May 1996, making him 27 years old at that time. The Respondent decided on 15 December 2023 that the Applicant was an adult, although no specific age or date of birth was specified at that stage, only that he was over 18 on arrival (and over the age of 25 for the purposes of the type of assessment undertaken). The Respondent now asserts that the Applicant was over 18 at the time of his arrive and that his year of birth is likely to be somewhere between 2000 and 2004, making him aged somewhere between 20 and 24 now.

2. The sole issue in this application is the determination of the Applicant’s age and date of birth.

3. An anonymity order has been made in this case given that the Applicant has an ongoing protection claim outstanding with the Home Office.

Legal Framework

4. The relevant legal framework in age assessments is well known and relatively uncontentious. In this case, there is no dispute as to the relevant law and principles to be applied; which are helpfully set out by both parties in their respective skeleton arguments and to which we have had regard. As such, we set out only in summary the core principles and need not refer in any further detail to all of the specific case law referred to.

5. The core principles to be applied include:

(a) The Upper Tribunal in this case is required to determine as an objective fact the age of the Applicant and is not bound to choose between one or other of the parties’ positions when doing so.

(b) There is no burden of proof on an individual to prove their age. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

(c) The guidelines for assessment of age are set out in B v Merton LBC [2003] EWHAC 1689 (Admin); although as in R (on the application of HAM) v London Borough of Brent [2022] EWHC 1924 (Admin) there may be occasions on which the requirements for fairness may be met without a full Merton compliant assessment and be based on evidence of appearance and demeanour alone (although these are likely to be rare).

(d) All relevant evidence must be considered in the round.

(e) At a fact-finding hearing, it is the substance of the evidence which is of primary importance. Matters going to process are very unlikely to be of decisive importance.;

(f) Issues of vulnerability must be taken into account insofar as relevant.

(g) The fact that an individual has been untruthful about one aspect of their claim does not mean that the same necessarily applies to the rest of their evidence.

The Appellant’s Evidence

6. In his written statement signed and dated 15 March 2024, the Applicant sets out his history from arrival in the United Kingdom in October 2023; including that shortly after arrival he was taken to a hotel near Luton airport for three weeks; then to a hotel near Doncaster airport for a little over a month; and to another hotel in Doncaster for between one and two months; before moving to a domestic address in Doncaster where he has remained since. The Applicant states that at all of the hotels he told staff that he was a child. He was allocated a lady called Carmen whist at the second hotel who works for a charity called Causeway and who supported him.

7. Whilst in hotel accommodation, the Applicant had a meeting about his age with three people and an Arabic interpreter, although he spoke a different dialect and had difficulty understanding him. The Applicant said that he raised this with his interviewers, but the assessment continued anyway. When asked questions about family, where he was from and how he knew his date of birth, the Applicant felt pushed even when he did not know or was not sure of the answer.

8. The Applicant clarified that his mother was dead, but his father was still alive and in Sudan when he left. The Applicant was assisted by a youth organisation to make contact with his brother and provided a phone number for him to the interviewers. He clarifies that he did not state that he had not seen him in ten years, he does not remember how long it had been since he saw him. The Applicant wanted to live with his brother but was not allowed to do so.

9. In his interview, the Applicant says that he stated he was the fourth child in his family, not the second eldest and that he only attended Kalwa, an Islamic school and not for eight years. He does not know where the different details in the record came from.

10. The Applicant’s present accommodation is a shared house with three other adults and he receives weekly financial support. He is not happy in his accommodation, it is always cold and he does not know how to solve the heating and has little to do, spending most of his time in his room and not interacting with the other older people at the accommodation. The Applicant spends most of his money on food that is ready to eat as he does not know how to cook and has no one to support him with groceries or cooking.

11. The Applicant attends weekly English lessons at the charity and would like to enrol in a college but there is no one to assist him. The Applicant has no children of his age to play with and he is of low mood and anxious because of his age problem. The Applicant has no one to support him to seek help for dental and physical health problems.

12. In his second written statement, signed and dated 31 July 2024, the Applicant sets out his history and family in Sudan, starting from where he was born and that he lived in Sarba village from birth. He includes his parents’ names and his siblings’ names, but does not know any of their ages or dates of birth; only that he is the fourth child out of six. The Applicant’s father went to the farm to work, but not every day and he also attended the Khwala. In his screening interview, the Applicant thought he was being asked about what his father did, and not his own occupation. His mother stayed at home during the day.

13. The Applicant attended Khwala from a young age to study the Quran; which it would be typical to attend from age 3 or 4 and he went with his siblings twice a day, every day, except Fridays. There were different teaching circles arranged according to comprehension, the Applicant being in the same group as his two younger siblings and his three older siblings were together.

14. In May 2022 the Applicant left Sudan after the Janjaweed came to his house and set it on fire. The Applicant’s mother was unable to escape but he and his other family members fled, the Applicant not wanting to be forcibly recruited by them. The Applicant became separated from his family and fled with a group of 14 other people who were heading to Libya and travelled together in a pick-up truck. The driver was paid, but not by the Applicant who does not know if someone else paid for him. The group reached the Sudanese-Libyan border after 13 days, via Chad where they stopped for three days. The Applicant only had bread and water during this period.

15. At the Libyan border, the militia/gangs took the Applicant and others and asked for a ransom of 1000 dinars to free them. The Applicant did not know if anyone paid this, but afterwards he was taken to work on a farm in Ain Zara (a day’s drive away from the border) with the other 14 people. The Applicant was badly treated, working under terrible conditions and beaten by armed militia; he was not paid for this work. The Applicant escaped in August 2022, the date being told to him by four others he escaped with. After this, the Applicant travelled for three days to Tripoli and survived by begging for food and drink along the way. He was arrested in Tripoli and imprisoned for three months, escaping with three others after being taken out to do a cleaning job on a private property.

16. The Applicant next travelled by foot to Algeria, again begging for food and drink along the way and asking directions. The Applicant crossed the border after a number of attempts, from where he then stayed in a small town near the border for two months, during which he begged for food and drink and was targeted by the police and sent to the Algerian-Niger border. After a number of attempts and again begging for food and drink along the way, the Applicant crossed the border in to Morocco and stayed in a border city there for four months, reliant on begging. The Applicant left there with another group of about 100 migrants after being intimidated and attacked by the authorities and headed to the Spanish border by foot, which took three days; again reliant on others for food and drink. An organisation at a refugee camp took the Applicant and others on a boat to cross to Spain. After four months in Spain, he followed others in the group, travelling by multiple trains to Calais in France, without tickets and he was never asked for documents or a ticket.

17. The Applicant stayed in Calais for around 20 days, meeting and staying with a group of Arabic speakers and during which time he was provided with bread, water and sometimes biscuits. After less than a day’s walk, around fifty people walked to the French coast where they found unattended boats which they used one of to travel to the United Kingdom. The Applicant does not know whose boat it was or if any money was paid for its use.

18. On arrival in the United Kingdom, the Applicant stated that he gave his date of birth as 28 May 2006 and his age as 17. He does not know why this was not correctly recorded, but his name was also wrongly spelt and he could not understand the interpreter on the phone. The Applicant was not able to challenge the year of birth recorded as 1996.

19. The Applicant gave further details as to his movements in the United Kingdom and the interview when he was in hotel accommodation consistently with his first statement. He stated that a request to move nearer to his brother in Brighton had been accepted and he expected to be moved within two to three weeks.

20. The Applicant states that he knew his date of birth as his mother had told it to him several times, although he does not know how many. He remembered two particular occasions, one was on a normal day whilst his mother was cooking and cleaning, just to let him know. The other time was on a birthday, when the Applicant was given sweets and shoes and told it was his birthday. He could not remember his mother telling him how old he was or when this happened, but it was memorable because it made him happy and because birthdays were not celebrated in his family. The Applicant does not know the time difference between these two occasions. The Applicant does not know how his mother knew his date of birth as she was not educated and he does not know if she was literate and he has no knowledge of any documents being produced with his date of birth on them.

21. As at the date of the statement, the Applicant remained in the same accommodation in Doncaster which he was not comfortable in, sharing with older people and with practical problems he was unable to deal with. He has health problems and no one to help him, the previous support from Carmen having ceased.

22. The Applicant attended the oral hearing and gave evidence through a court-appointed Sudanese Arabic interpreter. Although there were some moments of clarification during the course of an extended period of evidence in relation to interpretation, overall, we are satisfied that the Applicant and the Interpreter were able to understand each other and the Applicant was able to give his evidence without any significant difficulty.

23. At the hearing, the Applicant confirmed and adopted his two written statements, following which he was cross examined and asked a number of questions by the panel for further clarification. In relation to the Applicant’s father, he confirmed that he was still alive and that he was still in contact with him in Sudan. However, when asked when he was last in contact with him, the Applicant said it was a long time and not since he left Sudan. The Applicant did not know when his father was born.

24. The Applicant is still in contact with his brother, G, by phone. This brother lives in Brighton and continues to be in touch with their father in Sudan. The Applicant was provided with a number for his father but he said there was no network to call back home. The Applicant’s brother contacts his father through a Wi-Fi network whenever it is available.

25. When asked if he had tried to obtain information about his date of birth from his father, via communication with his brother, the Applicant stated that he did not and did not need to as he knew his date of birth, adding that there is no internet in Sudan so it is really hard to get in contact. The Applicant was asked a number of questions about communication through his brother and trying to obtain information about his date of birth, to which she repeatedly answered that there was no internet and no network so contact is very hard. The Applicant did not remember if at any point he had asked his brother to try and find out information from the father for him.

26. The Applicant does not know how old his brother G is or what his date of birth is. When he spoke to him, he had not asked him and did not answer the questions as to why he had never asked. The Applicant then stated that he thought his brother could have given information to him about the Applicant’s age and he did ask him about this. His brother said this is your real date of birth in 2006, because he knows this, although he was not present when the mother told the Applicant and the Applicant was unable to confirm how his brother knew his year of birth.

27. The Applicant did not know any details about why his brother, G, left Sudan, how old he was when he left nor how old the Applicant was when he left. He did not know how long it was between his last contact with G in Sudan and the next contact, in the United Kingdom or otherwise; they all were not in contact after G left Sudan. The Applicant had not previously said that it had been 10 years since he was in touch with G. The Applicant also did not know if his parents remained in contact with G before he himself left Sudan.

28. As to how the applicant knew that G was in the United Kingdom, he stated that when he arrived here, he said he was looking for his brother and had asked friends, just Sudanese people, and charity organisations who then informed him that he was here as well. The Applicant did not know that his brother was here before he arrived in the United Kingdom. He obtained his telephone number through organisations who helped him get in touch.

29. The Applicant had not talked to his brother G about their childhood in Sudan, or any details about it. G did however know about this age assessment claim, that the Applicant had to come to court and that it was important to him. His brother advised him to be patient. As to G’s status in the United Kingdom, the Applicant gave different answers as to whether he was aware that G had indefinite leave to remain, but said that he knew he had an ID document here. The Applicant was asked a number of questions about how he knew about G’s status and whether he had seen any of his documents, to which he stated that he had not asked his brother and did not know why he had not asked him. The Applicant did not give any explanation as to why his brother had not given evidence for him in this case, but he had told his solicitors about him.

30. In relation to other siblings, the Applicant confirmed that he had one sister and four brothers, who he named and identified whether they were younger or older than him. He did not know any of their ages or dates of birth and stated that he was not in contact with any of his siblings apart from G.

31. In Sudan, the Applicant attended Quranic school, which children normally start between the ages of three and five, but he did not how old he was when he started. The Applicant was still attending the school when he left Sudan and he did not work there before he left. The Applicant could not read or write in any language, nor did he have a phone or access to a computer in Sudan. The Applicant’s father worked some days on a farm and his mother did not work at all.

32. The Applicant had not asked his mother what his date of birth was, but she told him on a normal day what it was and when he was born. He did not know whether she had similarly told his siblings their details. On a second occasion, the Applicant’s mother also told him his date of birth, this was on a birthday and she bought him a gift on that day. Birthdays were not however normally celebrated within the Applicant’s family. The applicant was not sure whether his mother could read.

33. In Sudan, the Applicant never had any identity documentation. He initially stated that he does not have a Facebook account, did not have one in Sudan or in the United Kingdom. Then stated that he had one a long time ago which had been closed, but wasn’t sure when it was opened or how. In response to further questions, he stated he was in Sudan when it was opened but it was now closed. The Applicant stated that he did not have any friends on Facebook, he could not remember when he last used it, nor that he had told his solicitor he last used it in February 2024. The Applicant also stated that he did not have a mobile phone in Sudan, but does have one now and uses it to contact friends in the United Kingdom and family in Sudan, including one brother and a friend who he knew through that brother. The Applicant has not asked anyone he is in touch with in Sudan about his childhood or dates.

34. When the Applicant fled from Sudan, he did not take anything with him, no food, no water and no money. He gave details in response to questions about his journey out of Sudan and about places on route to the United Kingdom including experiences in Libya in particular.

35. On arrival to the United Kingdom, the Applicant had some belongings including a mobile phone. He did not remember when he obtained that phone or which country he was in when he obtained it. When the Applicant was interviewed after arrival, he had an interpreter over the phone, but said he wasn’t able to understand anything that he said, they were not speaking the same language. However, the Applicant did understand that he was asked where he was from and his date of birth, although he says that was recorded wrongly. The Applicant also said he didn’t understand the question about occupation and farming was what his father did. He only spent time in the Quranic school in Sudan. The Applicant denied telling the Home Office in his initial interview that his brother G lived in Brighton, nor that he had lost his brother’s phone number, nor that his brother had indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. On clarification as to status, the Applicant then said he knew his brother had a residence card.

36. In relation to the age assessment interview by the Respondent, the Applicant confirmed that he knew he was going to be interviewed on that particular day about his age, but then said he didn’t know beforehand and thought they were asking about his names. The Applicant stated that he could not understand the interpreter on that occasion, he knew he was asked about his name and things, but that otherwise did not understand. The Applicant stated that the told the interviewer that he did not understand and he was a little bit scared, feeling attacked with questions by people he did not know. The Applicant knew he was asked questions about his family but stated that he did not understand them and verified that his mum had passed away but his dad was alive. The Applicant stated that he did not give the interviewers his brother’s phone number, nor did he mention any social media to them.

37. The Applicant was asked questions about his NRM interview, which he stated he remembered but didn’t understand the interpreter on that occasion and told the interviewers that he didn’t understand. He was asked in particular about whether he paid money to traffickers to take him into Libya, to which he said he did not and the 1000 dinars was ransom money. If it was not paid he would be exploited for work. He confirmed the amount was correct.

38. On a typical day, the Applicant said that he just sits alone thinking, tries to study and improve himself or go to college. He is currently studying English five days a week and plays football with friends from in and out of college. He was unable to tell us much about his friends and said they speak their own language, although some spoke Arabic and some spoke basic English as well. Some of those who spoke Arabic were also from Sudan. At college, the Applicant did not know the age of the other students but said they were similar in age to him or younger than him. The Applicant currently has a mobile phone, on which he uses WhatsApp to keep in touch with friends in the United Kingdom and chat about college and football. He also plays games on his phone.

39. The Applicant’s family members in Sudan lived together in a camp, but there is no communication there. None of the Applicant’s siblings are married or in a relationship. In relation to birthdays, the Applicant’s mother bought him a gift on one birthday and also did for other siblings, but not every year as the family do not normally celebrate birthdays.

40. We tried to ask the Applicant when in Sudan a person started to be treated as an adult, and at what stage children moved into different groups in Quranic school; but he was not sure of any of the details and said adults also attended the school.

41. In relation to the Applicant’s Facebook account, he was unable to tell us what he used it for, stating that it was not for posting messages or pictures or for keeping in touch with friends or family, that he didn’t know what he looked at on Facebook.

42. The Applicant found out about his brother living in the United Kingdom from friends and organisations he asked to help him when he arrived. When asked how he managed to find that information within a day of his arrival, he stated that he asked the guys and they showed him. He was unable to identify anyone in particular who helped with this and he did not know how any of them knew his brother, but once he asked, they told him he was here.

43. In the United Kingdom, the people that the Applicant lives with do not speak Arabic and he does not know how old any of them are, only that they are older than him and one is probably the age of his father. The Applicant found a mosque through a charitable organisation, which he attends and meets friends there. It is about 15 to 20 minutes from his home and includes both children and adults.

44. The applicant was not asked any questions in re-examination.

Other written statements

45. In accordance with directions given at an earlier case management stage, Tapiwa Kachika made a written statement signed and dated 16 July 2024 as to a proportionate search of the Applicant’s social media. It is stated that the Applicant no longer had access to his Facebook account, it was last accessed in February 2024 but he has since forgotten his login details. The Applicant has no other social media accounts save for Whatsapp.

46. There is a written statement from Carmen Ramirez, signed and dated 7 August 2024. Although it should be noted that after the statement was made and submitted, Ms Ramirez confirmed that she was not authorised by her employer to make this statement and she would not be permitted to attend to give oral evidence or engage further in the process. The parties agreed that this information was relevant to the weight to be attached to this evidence, which remained part of the material before us.

47. As to the content of the statement, Ms Ramirez is an Outreach Advocate at Causeway Charity who provides casework support for victims of human trafficking and modern slavery as well as outreach support and advocacy for those individuals living in the community. Causeway is one of a number of organisations subcontracted by the Salvation Army to provide such support under the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract. It is for adults who have had a positive reasonable grounds decision and are awaiting a conclusive grounds decision.

48. Ms Ramirez was assigned to support the Applicant, who was referred to the service on 11 January 2024 and registered as a 27 year old; the youngest user that she supported. That support ceased on 19 July 2024 in line with Home Office and Salvation Army guidelines, albeit extended once under the Recovery Needs Assessment from an earlier date. The Applicant has now been referred to post-NRM support and is in receipt of an allowance directly from the Home Office.

49. During the initial induction and assessment with Causeway, the Applicant claimed that his date of birth was 28 May 2006 and he was 17 years old; which was raised with the safeguarding team and steps were also taken to obtain legal representation for the Applicant in relation to his age assessment dispute. The Applicant was categorised as a high needs service user, such that he had to be contacted weekly at a minimum.

50. Ms Ramirez states that from her face-to-face interactions with the Applicant, she confidently disagreed with the assessment that he was significantly over 18 and due to his age, he had additional vulnerabilities in comparison to other service users. Examples given include the Applicant’s insistence that he should be enrolled in full-time education and had low mood from not being able to attend school and showed an intense dislike about where he lived and who with, older men he had not met before in their 30s and 40s. The Applicant’s demeanour was compared to another service user from Sudan, an 18 year old girl and considered to be similar and with personality traits associated with younger people, such as expectation of professionals assisting with routine aspects of daily life (like making medical appointments and fixing things in a house) and seeking validation and corroboration of decisions made independently. Ms Ramirez did not have similar interactions with service users in their mid-to late 20s.

51. The Applicant also struggled to understand the institutions and systems in the United Kingdom, with Ms Ramirez having to explain a number of things to him multiple times, such as why the support from Causeway as ending and why he was not enrolled in school. The Applicant expected to be financially supported because he was young and did not understand the process of enrolment in school. He had a high expectation for people to do things for him, indicating a child-like dependence on others. Ms Ramirez supported the Applicant in various areas as he was genuinely unable to do things independently, including referring him to and registering him with a GP; making GP, dental appointments and eye appointments; collecting prescriptions; arranging interpreters; instructing and attending solicitor’s appointments and working with Migrant Help to resolve issues in the Applicant’s accommodation; and obtaining basic items like clothing, electronics and travel. The Applicant was also supported to enrol in temporary education courses at three different places. In relation to his planned move to Brighton, Ms Ramirez has made contact with local support services there and gave the Applicant details of them with translations in Arabic.

52. Ms Ramirez states that the level of support she has given to the Applicant is rare amongst outreach services; with support to adults normally able to do things like arrange GP appointments once the process has been explained to them and with signposting of information and referrals to services which they can then follow up independently. In a full-time week supporting 16-19 service users, Ms Ramirez would support the Applicant alone for 1.5 to 2 days of the week.

53. In her statement signed and dated 8 April 2024, Roxy Neale set out her involvement in the Applicant’s age assessment alongside Tara Samaya; both of whom are social workers with over 20 years’ experience and training in completing Merton compliant age assessments. Ms Neale is employed by the Respondent as an Advanced Case Practitioner and set out her qualifications and employment history.

54. Prior to the assessment on 1 December 2023, Ms Neale had not had regard to the previous Home Office assessment. An Arabic interpreter was used for the assessment, with confirmation that the interpreter was understood and the Applicant could communicate with full understanding.

55. The assessment considered the Applicant’s life story; information about his family; information about life experiences; travel to the United Kingdom and observations of the Applicant’s physical appearance and response to questions. The written statement refers to matters recorded in the assessment and that little information was given voluntarily about the Applicant’s family and education, which was, in Ms Neale’s opinion, the Applicant not wishing to share information willingly.

56. Ms Neale states that the age assessment was carried out under the auspice of a Brief Age Assessment in consideration of the Merton Guidelines by two senior social workers with extensive experience. The Applicant’s physical appearance strongly indicated a male over the age of 18 years, but in an attempt for fairness and acknowledgment of the potential margin for error using physical appearance alone, Ms Neale states that quality time was spent with the Applicant to obtain more information for a holistic decision. This did not indicate that an extended period of assessment was necessary. The conclusion was that the Applicant was an adult who was significantly over the age of 18. This was consistent with Home Office documentation which was only provided and considered after the verbal assessment. The decision was explained to the Applicant who repeated that he was a child.

57. A separate statement signed and dated 8 April 2024 from Ms Tara Samaya, the other Social Worker who undertook the assessment of the Applicant endorses the statement of Ms Neale without any additional information save for her own qualifications and employment.

The Documentary Evidence

58. There are a number of documents in the bundle which we have taken into account, but to which no specific reference is required, such as basic referral forms and more administrative documents, such as case records. We refer below to the key documents which contains matters of substance which may be relevant to the issue of the Applicant’s age and date of birth; including those that form part of the history.

59. In the Applicant’s Initial contact and asylum registration questionnaire (the “screening interview”) which was undertaken on 24 October 2023, the Applicant’s date of birth is recorded initially as 28/05/1996, with no dispute as to this indicated in the first question. When asked if he had ever used any other names or dates of birth, the date of 28/05/2006 is recorded. At the end of the interview, the Applicant did not confirm the date of birth first recorded and maintained his date of birth is 28 May 2006. As to occupation in his home country, the Applicant stated that he was a farmer.

60. At question 1.15, when asked whether he had his own accommodation or someone he could stay with whilst his claim was considered, the Applicant stated that, “My brother is here I can live with him [name] Dob Unknown. He lives in Brighton. I have lost his number and I don’t know how to contact him. He has leave to remain.”. At question 1.17 the Applicant stated that he did not have a phone or email.

61. At question 2.6 the Applicant was asked what level of schooling or education did he study to. The answer recorded was, “Up to 8 years education. I can read and write in my own language”. When asked about his journey to the United Kingdom, the Applicant stated, “I organised my trip myself and I did not pay much I relied on charities.”.

62. There is a record of children’s contact dated 29 November 2023 from the City of Doncaster Council which refers to a safeguarding referral from a case worker at the Human Rights Network asking for an age assessment for the Applicant, with text stating that the Applicant self-referred to that organisation as an unaccompanied asylum seeker who stated that he was living in inappropriate living conditions with unrelated adults. The recommended action was for an age assessment to be undertaken.

63. The Brief Enquiry Age Assessment form dated 1 December 2023 records the Applicant’s claim that he was 17 years old and born on 28 May 2006. It records basic background information, health needs and details of his journey to the UK from Home Office records. It also contains the following information:

Physical Appearance and presentation observations:
[the Applicant] showed an ID picture with a full and thick beard, although was clean shaven on the 01/12/2023. He has adult facial features such as a set chin and facial lines.
[the Applicant] is of lean build, he has a deep voice and a large Adam’s apple. [the Applicant] was clean and well groomed.

…

Who arranged your journey?
[the Applicant] said that he organised the trip himself and relied upon charities.

All available sources of information, including other age assessments that have been taken into consideration.
[the Applicant] advised during this assessment that he lived in Sudan with his parents and x4 brothers. He attended a Mosque school and learned the Quran. His home was set on fire by the Janjuit and that his parents had passed away in 2020. There had been fighting and guns although he had not been there at the time.

[the Applicant] did not know how old he was when he left Sudan.

[the Applicant] has x5 siblings [all named, A, N, T, AM and G]. He is the 3rd child with [G] being the oldest but doesn’t know how old he is. His next brother in line is age 19. [the Applicant] has not seen [G] for 10 years. [G] is in the UK. [the Applicant] does not know why he came to the UK or when he came to the UK. [the Applicant] said that he had spoken with [G] multiple times with the last being the previous day to this assessment and knew that he was in Brighton but had not discuss with him the possibility of [G] providing any support or accommodation to him. [the Applicant] provided a telephone number for [G} […].

Decision making analysis
[the Applicant] presents as being older than he claims to be. He has had very thick and established facial hair and his physical build would suggest an adult rather than a child.
[the Applicant’s accounts were not consistent throughout the assessment. He stated that his parents were dead but later said that his father told him mother had died and he was still alive. [the Applicant] said that he didn’t use cars for travel, but the previous assessment recorded that he did.
[the Applicant] said he hadn’t seen his brother for 10 years and in the first assessment he did not have any contact details for his brother but now has a telephone number for him, has spoken with him but has not discussed whether it would be possible for [the Applicant] to stay with his brother. It would be my expectation that given [the Applicant] has no connection to anyone else in the UK that he would have made efforts/enquiries to see/live with his brother. I query whether [the Applicant] has a brother in the UK. Age differences are significant. If [the Applicant] has not seen [G] for 10 years and he claims to be age 17, then he would have been age 7 at that time. There is an assumption that [G] would have been around 17 when he left home which places 10 years between them and yet his next brother in line to him, he claims to be only 2 years old than himself; therefore 8-year age gap between the eldest child and the 2nd. I acknowledge that this is not impossible, but [the Applicant] was unable to say how old [G] was and yet could for his next brother.
[the Applicant] said on the first assessment that he could read and write and had attended education for 8 years. He has since stated that he attended only Mosque school and learned the Quran.
[the Applicant] has previously been assessed by an Interviewing Officer […] as being an adult and gave the DOB at 28/05/1996 (27 years and 6 months).

64. There are a number of documents relating to the Applicant’s NRM referral and decisions, the detail of which is not necessary to repeat here beyond a small number of points that have been referred to elsewhere as inconsistencies, views on the interview and some details relevant more specifically to the Applicant’s age.

65. First, from the interview recorded in the referral papers. In terms of the first claimed exploitation in Libya, the Applicant stated that he was 16 years old at the time, which was identified as May to August 2022. The Applicant stated his date of birth as 28 May 2006 and he was now aged 17.

66. The Applicant was asked to give a brief explanation of being forced to work the first time in Libya, and then asked the following questions:

Did you pay a trafficker to help you get to Libya? No.

How did you get to Libya? It’s just that I came into Libya through a smuggler, he would get me to Libya, and they have people working on the borders.

But you didn’t pay this trafficker? Yes, I paid him, I didn’t understand the question at first.

How much money did you pay him? 1,000 dinars

Did you make an agreement with the trafficker? I did not agree with them, I was on my way, and he said okay I will take the money and take you to Libya.

67. The observations of the Applicant’s demeanour were that: ‘There are no indicators or evidence that they could be acting dishonestly. The customer answered my questions without hesitation but seemed reluctant to expand on some of his answers. This maybe because he finds it difficult to talk about his experiences. He was able to recall how he got into the situation, how he was treated by his exploiters, his living conditions, working conditions and exactly how he was able to leave the situation.”

68. The NRM referral proceeded by way of the adult referral path as opposed to the child referral path. A positive reasonable grounds conclusion was reached on 8 January 2024. A positive conclusive grounds decision was then reached on the basis that the Applicant’s claim met the required threshold on the balance of probabilities. In particular, it was stated that the Applicant had given plausible and reasonably detailed accounts of his exploitation with no significant discrepancies or credibility concerns in respect of the first incident and only one discrepancy which was accepted in relation to the second incident.

The Applicant’s case

69. The Applicant’s case, in essence is that there is sufficient evidence for a finding that the Applicant’s date of birth is as he has consistently claimed, the 28 May 2006. The closing submissions received on behalf of the Applicant focused primarily on the Respondent’s brief inquiry for age assessment as being fundamentally flawed, in particular that it was not in compliance with the relevant guidance or following a procedurally fair process. Submissions were made reiterating and supporting the original ground of challenge that the age assessment was unlawful; and that in any event, for the same reasons, little or no weight should be attached to it. Given that the primary question for us in the current proceedings is to determine for ourselves the Applicant’s date of birth, we do not rehearse all of the detailed submissions made in relation to the age assessment process.

70. The Applicant’s closing submissions in relation to the evidence were relatively brief. In relation to the Applicant’s own evidence, it was submitted that any inconsistencies could be readily explained by misinterpretation on the part of a party to proceedings and explanations were given for the same, in particular that there were difficulties with the interpreters used. Specifically, some interpretation was by phone and therefore may not have been as clear or accurate as face-to-face interpretation and it was not recorded as to what dialect of Arabic was spoken, such that there may have been local dialect issues. Other issues of inconsistencies were said to be irrelevant to the issue of the Applicant’s age, on which he has been consistent since arrival.

71. The Applicant also relies on there being no substantive challenge to the Applicant’s family history or to the majority of his account of travel to the United Kingdom. Overall, it was submitted on behalf of the Applicant that there was nothing within the evidence which undermined the Applicant’s credibility to a fatal extent, nor anything which was determinative of his age or undermined his account. Further, it was suggested that the Applicant’s presentation in evidence was not consistent with a person over the age of 28; nor can his physical characteristics reliably indicate such an age either.

The Respondent’s case

72. The Respondent’s case, in essence, is that the Applicant was not a truthful or credible witness and that his likely year of birth is somewhere between 2000 and 2004, making him between the ages of 20 and 24. We do not repeat the full detail of the Respondent’s submissions on all of the evidence, for which we are grateful to Mr Pallo for in his detailed closing written submissions, but summarise the key points.

73. Overall, it was submitted that this case was characterised by a dearth of relevant evidence as to age, much of which is due to the Applicant’s unwillingness to give detailed, open, honest or consistent accounts of matters relevant to determining his age. He is said to have given inconsistent accounts to different professionals and at times, told blatant lies and repeatedly blamed different interpreters for discrepancies. Further, the Applicant had failed to even to try to obtain evidence from family members whom is he is contact with, without any reasonable explanation for the failure.

74. In relation to interpretation, the Applicant has had four different interpreters and has said at least the first three included significant difficulties. The Respondent however highlights that in the initial screening interview, the Applicant was able to give detailed responses which corresponded with the specific questions asked, the accuracy of much of which has not been disputed and that this was simply not have been possible if the Applicant did not understand the interpreter at all as claimed. In respect of the age assessment, no concerns were raised by the social workers or interpreter as to understanding. In relation to the NRM interview, there were specific examples of where the Applicant corrected his understanding of what was said and was able to give detailed responses to questions. As to the Applicant’s evidence at the hearing itself, the Respondent’s position is that there were no significant interpretation difficulties (with limited interventions resolving any particular concerns) but evidence which was simply characterised by clear answers for more basic questions and evasive ones where more probative questions were asked.

75. The Respondent identifies eight specific inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence. Whilst it is acknowledged that (i) there may be difficulties for a young person in giving comprehensive evidence as to their claim and that allowances may be needed and (ii) a person may lie on a particular issue, but that does not mean he has lied on a different material issue; in this particular case, there remained significant issues with the truthfulness of the Applicant’s account. Further, that there is a particular motivation for the Applicant to be assessed as a child for both immigration and wider support purposes, including for education.

76. As to the inconsistencies/concerns as to the evidence, these were:

(i) Interpretation (dealt with above)
(ii) The Applicant’s claim that he did not know his brother G was in the United Kingdom prior to his arrival, but within 24 hours had been able to identify through unnamed charities and Sudanese people that he was, which city he was living in and what type of leave to remain he had.
(iii) Discrepancies as to the Applicant’s journey from Sudan to Libya, including what provision he had (or didn’t have) for the journey (stating that there was no food or water at all); his method of transport (by car or not) and the length of the journey (seven or thirteen days).
(iv) Discrepancies between the NRM interview and the Applicant’s other evidence as to whether he paid traffickers 1000 dinars to get in to Libya, a point which was clarified in his NRM interview. The Applicant gave no explanation as to how he could afford this payment and later denied making it at all.
(v) Discrepancies as to the Applicant’s time in Libya.
(vi) Discrepancies as to whether the Applicant had a mobile phone, which he denied in his screening interview but in evidence stated that he had acquired one prior to coming to the United Kingdom (but unclear as to when or in which country).
(vii) Discrepancies as to the Applicant’s Facebook account, how this was opened, what it was used for and when it was last accessed.
(viii) Discrepancies as to family in Sudan, as to whether both of the Applicant’s parents had passed away in 2020 or just his mother in 2022 and as to whether he was the second or fourth eldest child.

77. The Respondent made a number of observations about the Applicant’s travel to the United Kingdom and how this contrasted with his account now of being young, lacking independence and needing considerable support. The period of travel including significant confidence; fortitude; obtaining support from others; being resourceful, particularly in escaping from traffickers on two occasions in Libya; seeking employment including in construction (where he now says he has no work experience at all in Sudan); securing food, transport, accommodation and working with others for travel through many different countries. It is suggested that the Applicant’s journey to the United Kingdom showed considerable maturity and motivation; all in direct contrast to how he has portrayed his age and circumstances in the United Kingdom.

78. In relation to the Applicant’s family, the Respondent questions whether his brother G really exists in the United Kingdom given that he has not sought or provided any relevant information from him, such as G’s age, a copy of his identity card, details of his immigration history, details of his family history, including how he knew his own age or whether he knew the age of his siblings; nor any details of contact with other family members in Sudan. The Applicant has failed to give any explanation for this lack of evidence about or from G and it is submitted that lack of evidence wholly undermines the Applicant’s claimed age; that adverse inferences can and should be drawn for the failures to provide this evidence which could reasonably be expected. Further, the Applicant’s evidence as to other family members in Sudan and contact with them was opaque and again failed to give any plausible explanation for why no information was sought from them about the Applicant’s age or upbringing and although there may be some difficulties with connectivity of communication in Sudan, it was clear that there had been contact with family and a friend there.

79. The Respondent also questions the Applicant’s narrative as to how he became aware of his date of birth, submitting that this was not credible in circumstances where there was no documentary evidence; where the Applicant did not know if his mother was literate; where birthdays were not celebrated in the family; where there was no evidence of any other sibling being told their date of birth or their birthday being celebrated and with no indication of when this information was given to the Applicant. The Applicant is also recorded as having stated that he did not know how old he was when he left Sudan, which contrasts with knowing his date of birth before he left.

80. The Applicant’s current circumstances and lifestyle, including his ability to live in shared accommodation; attend college; make friends; attend Mosque and generally be sufficient in self-care; were submitted to be consistent with an adult with greater maturity than the Applicant’s claimed age. The Respondent noted that there was no evidence from any of the Applicant’s friends or tutors.

81. In relation to Ms Ramirez’s evidence, the Respondent submitted that little weight could be attached to this given she was not permitted to give it or attend to give oral evidence (such that the written statement could not be tested); that she has not received any training nor had any experience in age assessment; the comparison with another young adult taking the evidence no further and no assessment of whether factors other than age, such as cultural background, lack of English, level of education and lack of experience in the United Kingdom were relevant to the Applicant’s ‘high dependency’.

82. Finally, the Respondent relies on the social worker’s age assessment and submits that the decision-making process used was a reasonable one with much of the record of that and final decision not being directly challenged by the Applicant. Overall, reliance can be placed on the assessments and adequate reasons were given for the conclusion that the Applicant was an adult on arrival.

Assessment of the evidence and findings

83. We set out below our consideration of the evidence and weight to be attached to it when reaching our findings as to the Applicant’s age, grouped thematically as part of the overall holistic assessment.

The Applicant’s credibility

84. We begin by considering the Applicant’s credibility, not because this is in any way determinative, but for convenience as it potentially impacts on the assessment of other evidence which follows. There are a number of factors in favour of the Applicant being found to be credible and a number of concerns as to the credibility of his evidence to this Tribunal. In his favour, he has given (save for perhaps the very first answer in his screening interview) a consistent account that his date of birth is 28 May 2006 and has provided an explanation for how he knew this (considered in more detail below).

85. In addition, his claim to have been the victim of modern slavery in Libya was accepted, in part on the basis that he had given a consistent and truthful account of his claim. On 5 January 2024 the Applicant was referred to the National Referral Mechanism (the “NRM”) as a potential victim of modern slavery. Following a reasonable grounds decision, it was accepted in a positive conclusive grounds decision dated 22 February 2024, that the Applicant had been a victim of modern slavery in Libya between May and August 2022 and again in October 2022 for the specific purposes of forced labour.

86. However, we have significant concerns overall as to the Applicant’s credibility based on inconsistencies in his evidence; a lack of detail and/or refusal to engage with questions in cross-examination; the difference in oral evidence in response to different types of questions; the implausibility of certain parts of the evidence and the failure to give any reasonable explanation for the lack of evidence from family members which could reasonably be expected.

87. As to inconsistencies, these arose not only between the Applicant’s oral evidence and (i) his screening interview; (ii) information given to the Respondent’s social workers; and (iii) information given in his NRM interview; but also within his oral evidence at the hearing. Whilst not all of these inconsistencies are directly relevant to the question of the Applicant’s date of birth, we do consider given the number of them, that they are relevant to an overall assessment of the Applicant’s credibility. We do not list all of the inconsistencies, but note the following examples in particular:

(a) In oral evidence, the Applicant was inconsistent as to whether he was still in contact with his father or not. Stating initially that he was and that he had a contact number for him from his brother G, but then stating they had not been in touch since he left Sudan.
(b) In oral evidence, the Applicant initially stated that he was not in contact with any of his siblings except for G in the United Kingdom, but later said that he was in touch with another brother in Sudan and a friend that he knew through that brother, both via Whatsapp.
(c) The Applicant stated initially in oral evidence that he did not have a Facebook account; contrary to his solicitor’s disclosure statement on social media and contrary to his later evidence that he did have one that was opened in Sudan but now closed. However, he also stated that he did not have a mobile phone or any computer access in Sudan, at least one of which would have been needed to set up and use Facebook there.
(d) The Applicant stated on arrival that he did not have a mobile phone, but said in oral evidence that he obtained one prior to arrival somewhere between Sudan and the United Kingdom (but could not recall where or when).
(e) The Applicant stated in his NRM interview that he paid 1000 dinars to traffickers to enter Libya, but in oral evidence stated that he did not make any such payment, it was instead a ransom demand for that amount.

88. There were other examples identified by the Respondent with inconsistencies about whether the Applicant’s parents were both dead or when his mother died; about the Applicant’s occupation in Libya and about various parts of his journey to the United Kingdom.

89. Contrary to the submissions on the Applicant’s behalf, we do not find that such inconsistencies have been properly explained by the Applicant, if at all. At its highest, the explanation has repeatedly been difficulties with various different interpreters, but given the specific questions and answers recorded in different interviews as against oral evidence, as well as within the same oral evidence with the same interpreter. We do not accept that there were any significant difficulties with interpretation nor that this in any event accounted for the inconsistencies.

90. There were many examples of the Applicant being evasive in response to questions, particularly those that sought to understand why certain things had or had not been done; and/or failing to give any detailed response. The primary example was the Applicant’s repeated reliance in oral evidence on stating that there was “no network, no internet” when asked about contact with family members in Sudan and why he had not sought, directly or indirectly through his brother G, any information from them as to his own age/date of birth or that of any of his siblings or parents. That is despite also stating later in his oral evidence that he was in touch with a brother and a friend in Sudan. When asked questions in particular about why the Applicant had not asked his brother G about his age or how he knew his date of birth; or why G had not attended the hearing, the Applicant did not offer any substantive or detailed explanation at all.

91. We found that there was a noticeable difference in the Applicant’s responses in oral evidence depending on the type of question he was asked. If it was a straightforward matter, he gave clear, straightforward answers, for example when asked about what he used his phone for. If the question was more probing or required any form of reasoning, he gave more vague responses or evaded the question.

92. There were certain parts of the Applicant’s evidence which we consider were obviously untruthful. The clearest example is the Applicant’s claim that he did not know his brother G was in the United Kingdom before he himself arrived here and yet stated that he had not only found out which country he was in, but which city he lived in and what specific type of leave to remain he had within 24 hours of arrival on a small boat during which he was detained at a reception facility. The vague reference to asking other unnamed Sudanese people at the same reception facility (who would therefore also have very recently arrived in the United Kingdom) and charity workers who were able to give him detailed information about his brother within such a very short space of time was wholly implausible. It is also inconsistent with the Applicant’s answer during his screening interview that he had lost his brother’s phone number.

93. Finally, the Applicant was asked about communication with his brother, G, about his age and this application given the importance of it to him and his future. When asked very specifically about why his brother had not given written a statement or attended the Tribunal to give evidence in support of his claim, the Applicant was unable to give any explanation at all. At its highest, he said that he had given his brother’s details to his solicitors. There is no explanation at all, let alone any rational explanation as to why a close family member whom the Applicant says he is in contact with regularly and had been trying to move closer to or even live with did not in anyway support this claim. It would be entirely reasonable to expect such evidence to be produced and in the absence of any explanation as to why it was not, it damages the credibility of the Applicant’s claim.

94. Whilst credibility is not determinative at all of the Applicant’s date of birth; nor is evidence found to be untruthful in one or more respects; overall, we do find for the reasons set out above that the Applicant was not a credible witness and this is relevant to our assessment overall and in particular the weight we give to his own account as to his claimed date of birth.

Identity documentation

95. There is no evidence of any identity documentation in this case (the Applicant stating that he never had a birth certificate or passport), nor is the absence of it relied upon by either party; such that nothing more needs to be considered on this.

The Respondent’s age assessment

96. The Respondent’s age assessment was one based on a brief inquiry process rather than any extended or more detailed assessment. Whilst we find some force in the criticisms made of that assessment in terms of whether it was an appropriate or fair process, we focus in this decision on the weight that is attached to that assessment as part of the overall assessment of the evidence given that our primary purpose in this application is to determine for ourselves the Applicant’s date of birth.

97. We attach only little weight to the Respondent’s age assessment for a number of reasons. First, it is relatively limited in terms of the information obtained and considered for the conclusions it reaches. In particular, although not exclusively on physical appearance, its focus, particularly in the decision-making analysis relies more on physical appearance than other matters. We deal separately with physical appearance below. Secondly, the background information as to the Applicant’s family and journey to the United Kingdom is relatively limited and is also considered in more detail elsewhere. Thirdly, the age assessment concludes only that the Applicant was over the age of 18 on arrival and does not include any assessment of or decision on his actual date of birth. Overall, there is little helpful or persuasive evidence contained within the Respondent’s age assessment.

The Applicant’s account of how he knows his age and date of birth

98. The Applicant states that he knows his date of birth because on two separate occasions, his mother told him what it was. One was on a normal day, just so he knew and the other was more memorable because it was on his birthday and he was given a gift, unusually because birthdays were not normally celebrated in the Applicant’s family.

99. We are not persuaded by the Applicant’s account for the following reasons. First, the Applicant was unable to identify on which birthday he was told his date of birth (or how old he was when he was told) or how long ago either of these specific conversations occurred. Secondly, the Applicant was unable to explain why one particular birthday of his was celebrated, but no others, either of his own or of his siblings. Thirdly, the Applicant was unsure if his mother was literate and no other reference to any important dates or documentation was made, so it is unclear how his mother would have remembered and identified this date some years later. Fourthly, in his NRM interview, the Applicant stated that he did not know how old he was when he left Sudan, but if he was told his date of birth before he left, he would have known or been able to work this out and in contrast, he had given relatively clear dates and timescales for different parts of his journey. Finally, we took into account our general adverse credibility findings.

100. Overall, we attach very little weight to the Applicant’s claim as to how he knew his date of birth. We do not consider it to be a credible explanation.

The Applicant’s claimed events in Sudan and journey to the United Kingdom

101. On the Applicant’s claim, he left Sudan in May 2022 when he was 15/16 years old (his claimed date of birth being 28 May but no specific date given for his departure to know whether it was just before or just after his birthday). He claims that up to that point, he had lived in the same village since birth, had no work or employment experience and had no formal education, nor could he read or write in Arabic.

102. The Applicant claims that he fled his village in Sudan when it was attacked and followed others to flee to avoid forced recruitment to the Janjaweed after being separated from his family. He fled without any provisions (such as food, water or clothing), money or documents and without any plan as to his final destination. He then endured an arduous journey through multiple countries, including two periods of forced labour in Libya over a period of some 17 months before reaching the United Kingdom. The Applicant states that he was given basic food and water from fellow travellers, charities and others he begged from along the way. Aside from paying 1000 dinars to traffickers for passage in to Libya, the Applicant did not use any agents nor did he pay for any transport or passage at any other points in his journey (although he was unsure as to whether any of his fellow travellers may have done so, at least for his initial passage from Sudan).

103. The Applicant was able to work at some points in the journey, including seeking work in construction which he had no prior experience of. The Applicant was able to obtain a mobile phone at some point during his journey and obtain information about his family members in Sudan (including that this mother had died during the attack) and that his brother G was living in the United Kingdom (which we don’t find he was able to find out within 24 hours of his arrival as claimed).

104. We have considered the Applicant’s claims in the round as to his life in Sudan and his journey to the United Kingdom and find that his ability to make that journey and provide for all of his basic needs and more during it (in relation to which we obviously do not include the periods of forced labour) is more consistent with the maturity and abilities of a young adult than a child of 15/16 and even 17 as claimed by the date of his arrival in the United Kingdom in October 2023.

105. Whilst of course children, including those of an even younger age than the Applicant claimed he was at the relevant time, do successfully make arduous, lengthy and dangerous journeys to the United Kingdom unaccompanied, our experience is that they are more often with the use of agents for significant parts, if not all of their journey. In contrast, the Applicant has had no family support or prior planning for his journey at all, his claim being that he fled when his village was attacked with no prior plan and at the time was unaware even of the fate of his family. We find he would have had to show significant confidence, skills and maturity to navigate the challenges he faced in obtaining even basic necessities of food, water, clothing and accommodation as well as transport, passage in and out of different countries and obtaining a mobile phone; whilst travelling with different groups of complete strangers over an extended period of time. We think it unlikely that that level of fortitude would have been shown by a child of 15 or 16 who had lived in a rural area of Sudan without formal education or any previous employment experience, but on the balance of probabilities, more likely to have been achieved by a young adult.

Evidence about family members

106. There is before us very little evidence about the Applicant’s family beyond the names and locations of his siblings and father. The Applicant has given two different accounts of the order in which he and his siblings were born and although at one point there was a suggestion that his next oldest sibling was two years older than him, he was in evidence before us unable to identify any of their ages or dates of birth. In relation to his brother G, who he says has a residence document and indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom and therefore would have documentation showing his date of birth, he was unable to identify how old he was nor give any explanation as to why he does not know. Similarly, the Applicant has been unable to offer any explanation as to why he has not made inquiries with any family members, even those he is in direct contact with, as to his own age or upbringing.

107. The lack of any credible or relevant evidence about the Applicant’s family does not assist at all in determining his date of birth. At its highest, this lack of evidence, particularly from G, only undermines the Applicant’s claim.

Physical appearance and demeanour

108. At the initial assessment, the Respondent placed particular emphasis on the Applicant’s appearance which formed the basis for the ‘brief inquiry’ age assessment. We exercise caution, in line with the principles set out above and the relevant case law, in placing weight on physical appearance. There is no evidence of any comparable person of a particular age from the Applicant’s background and no evidence of any particular features being specific to a person’s age. We do not consider that the Respondent’s assessment which focused in particular on physical appearance carries any significant weight at all.

109. We were also able to observe the Applicant over the course of a day during the hearing before us, from which we did not consider his physical appearance to be helpful one way or the other in assessing his current age or date of birth.

110. Overall, we do not attach any significant weight to the Applicant’s physical appearance as it is not a strong factor in support of or against his claimed age.

111. Demeanour is also a relevant consideration, but one which should also be approached with caution; particularly in light of the Applicant’s background, including cultural differences, his family upbringing and the lack of formal education beyond attending a Quranic school in Sudan.

112. Overall, we do not attach any significant weight to the Applicant’s demeanour, to which little reliance has been placed prior to the hearing by either party and there was nothing of particular note as to his demeanour during the hearing either. We find there is nothing in his demeanour either way to support the Applicant’s claimed age nor against it.

Applicant’s lifestyle

113. There was very little in evidence before us as to the Applicant’s current lifestyle. He currently lives in shared accommodation with other men; eats mainly pre-prepared food and has difficulty if there are problems around the home in fixing them or contacting a person to help. He is described initially as needing a high level of support in relation to navigating the health and education systems in the United Kingdom (see further below) but there was little recent evidence of this now that the Applicant has been in the United Kingdom for a longer period. The Applicant has attended college to learn English, has made friends there, plays football and goes to Mosque about 15-20 minutes away from home. He keeps in contact with family members and friends via Whatsapp and has been able to communicate with his solicitors for the purposes of this claim (and likely also for his protection claim).

114. In our view, there is nothing in the Applicant’s current lifestyle that adds any significant weight to his claim to have been born in 2006 and it is equally consistent with the lifestyle of a young man able to look after himself and develop ties, both in terms of education, religion and friendship in the United Kingdom; even if he has had some initial support in establishing himself here.

115. We also take into account that there has been no evidence at all from any friends, teachers, or anyone from the Mosque about the Applicant or his current lifestyle, what age they think he is or why; or their interactions with the Applicant. It would also have been reasonable to expect at least one of the people he sees regularly, in a professional, religious or personal capacity to have supported his claim.

Evidence from others about the Applicant

116. The only person who has given evidence in support of the Applicant’s claim is Ms Ramirez, who, for employment reasons should not have done so and who was also not able to attend to be cross examined. We attach less weight to her evidence in light of this and in any event, we do not consider that her evidence gave any significant support for the Applicant’s claimed age as opposed to a describing a young adult. In particular, we find that Ms Ramirez has no specific expertise in age assessment, nor does she routinely work with children as opposed to adults (normally those at least ten years older that the Applicant, or more) and that she has assumed his ‘high dependency’ was based solely on his age without taking into account or considering any other factors. These could include his lack of formal education; the potential trauma of the death of his mother and arduous journey alone from Sudan which included two periods of modern slavery; his cultural background; his lack of English and his recent arrival in the United Kingdom and lack of familiarity with systems here which would evidently be very different to life in rural Sudan.

117. We do not find the comparison with one other young adult from Sudan to offer any helpful insight in to the Applicant’s age either, given there may also be other factors relevant to her needs beyond age. In any event, the other person was accepted to be an adult, which undermines the comparison.

Conclusion

118. On the basis of our holistic assessment of all of the evidence as set out above, we find it more likely than not that the Applicant was 19 years old when he arrived in the United Kingdom in October 2023 and is now 21 years old. It follows that the Applicant was an adult when he arrived in the United Kingdom and at the time of his age assessment.

119. We attribute 28 May 2004 as the Applicant’s date of birth.

120. Overall, we make this finding on the basis of the lack of evidence in support of the Applicant’s claim, including that which could reasonably have been expected; the adverse credibility findings and the contrast between the Applicant’s ability to undertake a significant and dangerous journey from Sudan to the United Kingdom with no resources or specific support (beyond that of strangers who he followed or travelled with at times) and his now claimed immaturity in the United Kingdom. All of which leads us to the conclusion that although not as old as first assessed by the Home Office, the Applicant is older than he claims to be and within the range now suggested by the Respondent.

~~~~0~~~~