JR-2025-LON-000091
- Case title:
- Appellant name:
- Status of case: Unreported
- Hearing date:
- Promulgation date:
- Publication date:
- Last updated on:
- Country:
- Judges:
The decision
Case No : JR-2025-LON-000091
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
BETWEEN:
THE KING
on the application of
SMF
Applicant
-and-
DERBY CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
ORDER
BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce
ON 16 October 2025
UPON the Upper Tribunal having conducted a fact-finding hearing on 27 and 28 August 2025
IT IS DECLARED THAT:
1. The Applicant’s date of birth is 12 August 2008.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:
2. The Respondent’s decision, dated 5 June 2024, is quashed.
3. The Respondent shall pay the Applicant’s costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
4. There shall in any event be a detailed assessment of the Applicant’s publicly funded costs.
Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce
16 October 2025
Case No: JR-2025-LON-000091
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
1 September 2025
Before:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE
Between:
THE KING
on the application of
SMF
Applicant
- and -
DERBY CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
Hearing dates: 27-28 August 2025
Field House, London
For the Applicant: Mr V. Jagadesham of Counsel, instructed by Bhatia
Best Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms C. Rowlands of Counsel, instructed by Derby City Council
Legal Services
J U D G M E N T
1. The Applicant is a Syrian national. He has permission to seek judicial review of the Respondent’s decision dated 5 June 2024 that the Applicant is not the age he claims to be.
2. The Applicant states that he was born on 12 August 2008. That would today make him 17 years old. The Respondent local authority reject this, and have assessed him as being “clearly an adult”.
3. Permission to judicially review the Respondent’s decision was granted by His Honour Judge Rawlings, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, on the 14th January 2025.
4. The face-to-face hearing took place over the course of two days 27-28 August 2025. Assisted by court interpreters I heard live evidence from the Applicant on day 1, and two additional witnesses on the morning of day 2. The Applicant was given the appropriate warning not to discuss the case with his witnesses, and confirmed on day 2 that he had abided by that instruction. I shall refer to these witnesses by their initials. They are MFH, an Iranian national born in 1997 and HAM, a Syrian national born in 2005. On the afternoon of day 2 I heard submissions from the parties and reserved my decision, which I now give.
The Evidence
5. I have read and considered all of the evidence before me, but here I summarise the key evidence that assisted me in reaching my decision.
The Age Assessment
6. The age assessment was undertaken by two social workers employed by the Respondent on 5 June 2024, Eve Moore and Damaqu Kareem of the Children in Care and Specialist Migration Team.
7. A Kurdish Bahdini interpreter was provided by telephone. The conclusions of the social workers are recorded in a pro-forma entitled ‘Outcome of Brief Enquiry of Age’. They have ticked the box marked “We do not accept your claimed age/date of birth and believe you are clearly an adult (in physical appearance and demeanour) and therefore need to be supported by the Home Office”. In the section marked ‘any other comments' a handwritten note records:
“It is also important to point out that the DOB you gave does not match your age that you have claim. Therefore it is inconsistent information”
In the section provided to record the Applicant's response, it is noted that he told the social workers that if he was able to contact his mother he would be able to provide them with a birth certificate.
The Social Workers’ Evidence
8. Both of the social workers who undertook the brief enquiry into the Applicant’s age have provided witness statements.
9. Eve Moore has sworn two statements, dated 12 September 2024 and 3 April 2025. Ms Moore exhibits three documents: a photograph of the Applicant taken on 5 June 2024, the notes she took on that date, and the materials provided to her by the Home Office (which I summarise below). Ms Moore has been part of Derby Council’s Specialist Migration Team since 2022 and has prior experience of working with asylum seeker, and Syrian refugees.
10. Ms Moore describes how the brief enquiry into age took place, and explains that she took the lead whilst her colleague took independent notes. She states:
“…in our interaction with SMF we believed him to clearly be an adult. He had adult facial features, being creases round the eyes, angled jaw line, large hands, and a confident adult-like demeanour”
11. She goes on to explain that whilst they found some of the information he had provided to be inconsistent, this was “not weighted in our decision”. She points out that she and her colleagues undertake their child protection duties seriously, and that had they believed he was a child, or had any doubt about that, they would have taken him into care.
12. Ms Moore’s written note is provided. Pertinent to my decision is the following exchange:
“dob?
12/08/2008
How old?
16 years old
How do you know how old?
Mum told me
When?
When it was my birthday when she told me
Which birthday?
I don’t know”
13. Damaqu Kareem is the second social worker who took part in the brief enquiry into the Applicant’s age. She has worked for the Council since 2017, initially in Children’s Services, and then in the Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children team. She has signed a witness statement dated 3 April 2025 to which she has exhibited her notes, taken during the assessment.
14. Like Ms Moore, Ms Kareem refers to the Applicant having been unable to say when he learned his age. She writes:
“10. When asked how did he know his age and date of birth, SMF replied “my mother told me”. SMF went on to say, “once it was my birthday and that is when my mother told me.
11. When asked which birthday, SMF said ‘I don’t know’. Both Miss Moore and I have reviewed our handwritten notes where this is clearly recorded, and both clearly recall SMF stating that he did not know on what birthday his mother told him his age and date of birth…”
15. This version of the exchange, where the Applicant is recorded as saying that it was only “once” that his mother discussed his age/birthday with him, is indeed what has been recorded in Ms Kareem’s handwritten note, taken that day.
Home Office Assessment
16. These materials have been lodged by the Respondent as an exhibit to Ms Moore’s statement. They show that the Applicant claimed asylum on 24 May 2024 and record that two officers, one of at least Chief Immigration Officer (CIO) level, separately determined that the Applicant’s physical appearance very strongly suggests that he is significantly over 18 years of age. The notes section records that a social worker, P Okunja, was also present and agreed with this assessment. The notes explain that this assessment was reached taking the following matters into account:
“Physical Appearance:
He has strong adult like features.
He is slim body and uses his body stature to present himself as a child.
Has defined jawline, skin on his face appears mature.
Presents with visible Adams apple which is a sign applicant is a grown up man.
Has crow's feet lines in the corners of his eyes when he speaks. Has visible nasolabial lines with observed rings around his neck.
Has evidence of receding hairline with grey hair observed all over his head.
He has a deep and consistent voice which is indicative of an adult.
Has visible cheekbones of an adult there is evidence of long shaving requirement with stubble and acne.
He has wrinkles showing on his forehead with very visible veins on his neck.
Has strong hairy muscular arms, hands and fingers when displayed. He has tight broad shoulders which is a common feature in adults.
His nasiolabial folds are well defined, and his facial skin has no firmness or lustre which is associated with a young person of his claimed age.
Presents with well-developed nose proportionate to his face.
Presents with well- developed eyebrows that meet in the middle.
Presentation and demeanor:
Observed to maintain eye contact with officer. Reasoned as adults to adult conversation and there was no childness in his presentation.
Observed to be very assertive and confident and argumentative with attitude towards officers. Observed to speak in broken raised voice. Observed to try and calculate whenever asked of his timeline and could not directly respond to questions being asked of him”.
17. The ‘summary and decision’ states the conclusion reached that day, the 24 May 2024, was that the Applicant is in the age range of 24-26 years old.
The Applicant’s Evidence
18. SMF has provided three witness statements, dated 16 August 2024, 31 January 2025 and 3 April 2025 each of which he adopted before me.
19. The Applicant avers that he arrived in the United Kingdom by small boat on 24 May 2024. He was kept at Dover for two days before being transferred to a hotel somewhere in London for approximately 2 weeks. At this hotel he told staff members that he was a child, and they gave him the number to call Migrant Help. About one week after calling Migrant Help two ladies from social services came to visit him. The interview with the ladies took approximately 10 to 20 minutes and they were with the Applicant for no more than 40 minutes overall. An interpreter was used over the phone. The Applicant states that the ladies pointed out his grey hair, but did not give him the opportunity to comment. Had he had such an opportunity he would have told them that this was a common trait in his family and he can recall discussing it with his uncle.
20. The Applicant explains that before he left Syria he lived on a farm with just himself and his mother. His mother was unwell. It was therefore the Applicant who undertook all of the manual labour on the farm, assisted from time to time by his maternal uncle. The Applicant says that the journey from Syria to the United Kingdom was very hard and dangerous and that he was scared the entire time. He was beaten and abused by the agent and found the journey “very stressful”.
21. In his first witness statement the Applicant states that he did not know where his father was. In his third witness statement he says that his father died when he was very little. He was taken to fight for the Syrian Army and the Applicant’s mother has told him that he died fighting Daesh. The Applicant states that when he was 3 or 4 he, his mother and maternal uncle all fled Syria to live in a refugee camp in Iraqi Kurdistan. It was called Dumiz Camp.
22. The Applicant maintains that his date of birth is 12 August 2008 and that he knows this because his mother told him. She would bring it up around his birthday and this happened for several years, from when he was about 13.
23. In his statements the Applicant details the nature of his life in the asylum hotel. He says that he is afraid of other residents, especially those who are noisy, who take drugs, drink and smoke cigarettes. In his initial statement he mentions a Syrian friend who was slightly older than him. This friend assisted him by pooling their resources, buying food and cooking for them both. He has however now been moved and the Applicant does not know where he is.
24. The Applicant does not agree that his physical appearance and demeanour are that of an adult. He points out that recently he was ‘age challenged’ by a newsagent whilst trying to buy a can of Red Bull. It was only when he produced his Home Office identity document (which states that his date of birth is 1999) that the shopkeeper was prepared to sell him the drink. The Applicant acknowledges that he does sometimes shave, although he cannot really remember when he started. He also agrees to having some grey hairs, a trait in his family.
25. The Applicant states that he is unable to contact his family in Syria. He had a mobile phone with him which contained all their contact details, and whilst in France he was using it to speak to his mum. This phone got wet on the journey crossing the channel and it could not be fixed so he threw it away.
26. In his oral evidence the Applicant said that he is now living in a shared house with two other men. He moved there just a week before the hearing. He just stays in the house; he watches videos on Tiktok and he sleeps. He is in contact with friends and his solicitor by Whatsapp.
27. Ms Rowlands asked him about a photograph in the bundle in which he is seen in what looks like a carpark behind a commercial building. He is smoking a cigarette and is smiling. The Applicant could not remember when exactly it was taken but he thinks it was behind a supermarket near the accommodation – possibly Aldi or Lidl. The picture was taken by a friend. He admitted that he smokes regularly and that he started in Syria. He does not have a problem getting hold of cigarettes. Another photograph in the bundle was, the Applicant says, taken by social workers who told him to ‘smile’ so he did.
28. The Applicant said that he is originally from a small village called Kafar Saghir, which is near Qarbani. He would go there sometimes to shop with his uncle. In answer to Ms Rowland’s questions the Applicant was unable to say whether there was a school in Kafar Saghir – all he knows is that he didn’t go to one. He could not agree one way or the other with the information she had that it had a population of just over 3000: he doesn’t know. When it was put to him that school is compulsory in Syria the Appellant said that if its not suitable for you, you don’t go. He and his friends did attend Mosque. The Applicant thinks that he was about 12 when they moved back to the village. Many buildings were destroyed. Whilst he agreed that people had been killed there, he had not seen this for himself. His day to day life after they moved back consisted of farming. He would look after the animals. He would get up at about 6am and taken the animals out to graze, til about 7pm. Often he did so in the company of his uncle. When they got home they would wash, eat and sleep.
29. On days that he was not out with the animals he could play in the village street with his friends. The Applicant was asked about his witness, HAM. He said that he knew him from the village. He thinks that HAM is 2-3 years older than him. They would play football, usually 5-a-side. If there were more than 10 people would be ‘subbed in’. He named some of the other boys as Ali, Ahmed, Yassin and Tawfiq, but said that “there are many – these are just some names”. He said that he sometimes played attack, sometimes he would go in goal – they would swap positions. He knew HAM’s mother who he would see on the street where they were playing. She knew his own mother – the women would sometimes sit and talk to each other. The Applicant did not know HAM’s father; he could not say if he was alive or dead.
30. The Applicant and HAM were reunited in the Mosque in Derby. The Appellant was there giving Ramadhan prayer and this boy came up to him – he knew his name. At first the Appellant did not recognise him. HAM had left Syria sometime before the Applicant so they had not seen each other for a while. Only when HAM said who he was did the Applicant realise.
31. He does not know the exact reason that he and his family went to live in Iraq, but he thinks it was because of the “problems” in Syria. When he was in the camp he used to play with other children in the street – they would play football. He didn’t go to school there either. In the camp people spoke in the Kurmanji dialect of Kurdish, but also in Bahdini, which people spoke in the shops and out on the street, for instance when he was playing football he would use Bahdini to speak to the other boys.
32. The Applicant was asked about when he started to fast for Ramadhan. He said that at the beginning he would only do some of the days. He thinks this started in Iraq, when he was about 10. Only when he grew older did he start keeping full fasts throughout the month. As of the date of hearing he believes he had completed 3-4 full fasts for Ramadhan. He knows his birthday is in August because his mum used to tell him – he thinks the first time she said it was when they were in the camp. He knows now that he is 17. Ms Rowlands asked the Appellant about shaving. He said that he didn’t have a beard in Syria but he did shave before he left. When he visited the barber there that was to get his hair cut. The Appellant told me that he had had his hair cut about 10 days before the hearing and that the barber and also given him a shave then, using the same tool he used to cut his hair. The Applicant denied shaving himself.
33. Under cross-examination the Applicant said that he thinks he was 15/16 at the date that he left Syria. It was in the winter. Maybe January/February or March. When he left, his uncle had given him a mobile phone containing his number, but this was the one that got damaged by the water as he crossed the channel. He cannot remember much of the interview that was conducted as he arrived. He was cold, and freezing. He had been in France for two months with very little food and so was weak.
34. At the conclusion of her cross examination Ms Rowlands put it to the Applicant that he is at least five years older than he claims. He responded “how do you know that?”
The Testimony of MFH
35. MFH is an Iranian man who is seeking asylum in the UK. He has sworn a witness statement in this matter dated 28 February 2025.
36. MFH gives his own date of birth in March 1997. He first met the Applicant in June 2024 when he was moved to a hotel in Derby. At that time the Applicant was sharing his room with an African man, and after a while, another African man was placed in that same room. MFH reports that the Applicant was unhappy and scared of these two men because they were older than he was. MFH was in the room next door with two other Kurdish men. When one of them got moved on he asked if the Applicant could move him with them. After that the Applicant seemed much happier. MFH states that he treats the Applicant as if he is his ‘younger brother’. The Applicant has told MFH that he is 16 years old, and MFH believes him. He behaves as MFH did when he was a teenager. He watches cartoons. He does not know how to cook or how to look after himself: for instance he had to be taught how to use the laundry.
37. In his oral evidence MFH clarified that since he swore his statement he has moved away from the hostel. He now lives about 2 hours away so they have only seen each other 2-3 times since then. He stated that when they lived together he and the Applicant and other Kurds would go out walking in the town together. When he had arrived in the hotel the Appellant had another friend there who was helping him cook etc and after he moved on, MFH asked if the Appellant could move into his room. After that he would help him. He said “when I saw him I knew he was underage”. This did happen in the hotel – there was another boy living there who later on got moved into care. MFH agreed with Ms Rowlands that he had no specialised training to evaluate age – it was simply what he thought.
38. In answer to Ms Rowland’s questions MFH explained that although he is from Iran, and the Appellant is Syrian, their Kurdish dialects are mutually intelligible. Being Kurdish is important to both of them. It is how they define themselves. He however denied that this solidarity would prompt him to come to court and lie for someone just because they were a Kurd.
39. MFH was asked about the picture of the Appellant where he is smiling. Ms Rowlands pointed out that he had told the court that the Appellant was very unhappy living at the hotel at that time. MFH laughed. He said that everyone is comfortable at some point. He maintained that the Appellant had been unhappy there but he had treated him like he was his “little brother”.
The Testimony of HAM
40. HAM, who adopted his witness statement dated 25 March 2025, claims to have known the Applicant in Syria. HAM is a Syrian Kurd, now granted protection, who was born in October 2005. He avers that he came into contact with the Applicant in this country when they bumped into each other in a mosque in Derby. He had been on a train going somewhere else and a problem had developed on the train. They were instructed to get off the train at Derby and wait for another train. It was however Ramadhan and it was time for prayers, so he and his travelling companion decided to find a mosque, offer their prayers, and then resume their journey after they had broken their fast. It was there that he saw and recognised the Applicant as being a boy from his village. He approached him. The Applicant did not at first recognise him, but after a moment was happy to see him. They have stayed in touch since then, and when the Applicant told him that his age was being disputed, he volunteered to come to court to give evidence on his behalf.
41. HAM states that back in Kafar Saghir he and the Applicant were neighbours. They used to attend the same mosque, and that from time to time they would play football together. He recalls the Applicant’s mother being unwell. HAM says that when their mothers used to send food to each other they would always tell him to look after the Applicant because he was younger. He is thus confident in being able to say that whilst he does not know the Applicant’s exact date of birth, he believes him to be 2-3 years younger than he is. HAM left Syria in 2022. That was his written evidence, filed in compliance with directions on 24 July 2025.
42. In his oral evidence HAM explained that he has now lived in the UK for 3 years. He was 16 when he arrived and he is now 19. He answered the initial questions put to him by Ms Rowlands in a straightforward and pleasant manner. He agreed that they were from a small village, not far from Aleppo. There was a school in the village, but because they are Kurdish, and their language was forbidden in the school, he stayed at home and was taught by his sister. He and other boys also attended mosque to learn Qur’an – he would see the Applicant at these classes. They would also see each other playing football in the street. Although they had not known each other all their lives, they saw each other quite frequently at such matches and he considered him a friend.
43. Ms Rowlands then asked HAM a series of questions about the war and how it had impacted his village and family. HAM’s demeanour immediately changed. He folded his arms and looked as though he was trying to suppress tears. He refused to answer her questions. He said that he had agreed to come to speak about the Applicant, how he knew him and that he believed him to be younger than him. He had not however agreed to talk about any of these other things. He said that he had been in that village throughout the war, but said he would not talk about the things he had seen, or his family. He did not want to answer these questions. Ms Rowlands persisted. She put it to him that there had been a serious incident in the village in 2016 and asked whether he remembered it. HAM became very agitated and upset. He said “my uncle was one of them – I don’t want to talk”. At this point I intervened to ask Ms Rowlands what she was referring to. She said that she had “some information” about the village, and she was testing HAM to see if he was really from there. I pointed out that the “information” she was referring to did not appear to be in the bundle, had not otherwise been served and neither myself nor Mr Jagadesham had any idea what she was talking about. HAM was visibly upset and was refusing to answer any other questions about his family. At this point we took a short break.
44. As the hearing resumed Mr Jagadesham informed me that the information that Ms Rowlands was using as the basis of her cross examination was a Wikipedia entry on the Kafar Saghir, which amongst other things said that there had been a massacre in the village in 2016. This was the serious incident that Ms Rowlands had referred to in her questioning. Ms Rowlands confirmed that she was not seeking permission to adduce this evidence, but she wanted to be able to challenge HAM’s evidence that he was from this village. It was in her submission clear that the Respondent challenged everything that HAM said, and this included whether or not he had actually been from the same place as the Applicant. I indicated that I would not permit further cross examination on the basis of evidence that was not before me and said that if the Respondent wished to rely on such evidence an application should be made, giving the Applicant an opportunity to address it if he considered it appropriate to do so.
45. Ms Rowlands then continued her cross examination without further reference to the Wikipedia material. HAM told her that he could not remember when he had last seen the Applicant, other than it was a while ago. He confirmed that he had met him in the mosque in Derby. In response to her suggestion that this was a “crazy” coincidence he said “in our religion we call al-qadir – a miracle”. He rejected Ms Rowlands’ assertion that he had come to court to lie. He reiterated that he knew the Applicant from his village, and said that they had played football together with others on many occasions. Usually it was 5-a-side but if they wanted to play a big tournament they could get lots more people – Muhammad, Tahir, Zainab and many others he cannot remember all the names. Then 10 would play 10 whilst others sat on the bench and waited their turn.
46. Finally, in response to my questions, HAM said he was unable to say what football team the Applicant supported. I asked what position he played and he said “any, but he is a really good striker- much better than me!” I asked what football team he supported and he said “I live in North Shields now, so if anyone there asks me I say Newcastle. But in my heart, its Manchester United”. Asked to name some other players in the village he had said Muhammad, Zainab and Tahir.
Other Evidence
47. Nothing arises from the Applicant’s social media activity.
48. The Applicant has adduced expert evidence from two well-known experts on the Middle East in respect of how age is calculated. Sheri Laizer, an expert on Kurdish culture, religion and politics confirms that Syrian Kurds would commonly begin counting at 1, rather than 0
Consideration and Findings
49. I begin by considering the evidence before me about the Applicant’s appearance. I do so because this is a case where the Respondent relies very heavily on the assessment of the social workers about how the Applicant looks. It is true that the ‘brief enquiry’ outcomes form also makes reference to there being “inconsistency” in the Applicant’s responses, but both Ms Moore and Ms Kareem expressly state that whatever that inconsistency might have been, it was not “weighted” in their assessment. All that is therefore left are their shared opinions that the Applicant’s appearance and demeanour strongly suggested him to be an adult. In her submissions Ms Rowlands rightly pointed to the social workers’ expertise; she also highlighted their objectivity, informing me that another young migrant assessed on the same day was accepted to be a minor and was removed from the same asylum hostel where they met the Applicant. I confirm that I have no reason to doubt the expertise or objectivity of either of these professionals, and I recognise that they have both received specialist training.
50. Ms Rowlands further urged me to weigh in the balance the views expressed by the two immigration officers and another social worker, presumably somewhere in Kent, after the Applicant’s arrival on a small boat. They too concurred that he looked very obviously like an adult.
51. It is trite in this jurisdiction that we must approach appearance alone with a degree of caution. Young men typically start to develop facial hair in adolescence, but its thickness and rate of growth can vary. Life experience, and in particular traumatic life experience, can make someone appear older than they actually are; as can genetics, and exposure to the elements. A shepherd on the mountains of Kurdistan may, for instance, appear more ‘weatherbeaten’ than an individual of the same age growing up in a city. There is always the risk that a young person might be a few years younger or older than their appearance suggests, and Ms Rowlands tell me that this ‘grey area’ is baked into the assessment of age conducted by skilled social workers like Ms Moore and Ms Kareem. I acknowledge all of that.
52. I must also acknowledge that appearance, and interpretation of appearance, is to some degree subjective. The immigration officers who conducted the initial assessment in May 2024, for instance, recorded that the Applicant had a “receding hairline”; I have to say I found this difficult to square with my own observation of him made over the two days he was before me. It did not look to me that his hairline was receding in the slightest. Similarly, I was unable to see the wrinkles that they did. Whilst I agreed with the officers’ note that he has a “slim body”, I do not really understand the conclusion that they drew from that: [he] “uses his body stature to present himself as a child”. It seems to me that it is at least possible that he has a slim, childlike frame because he is in fact a child. I am therefore only able to place limited weight on the Applicant’s physical appearance.
53. Both the Respondent and the Home Office also emphasise the Applicant’s “confident adult-like demeanour”. Again, these are remarks that are of little assistance to me. Teenage boys are obviously capable of being confident and challenging; one might say that they are well known for it. Conversely, an adult might be timid and shy. The Immigration Officers’ record that the Applicant has a “deep and consistent voice” might be of more use, were it not contradicted by my own observations, and indeed their own note that he was seen to “speak in broken raised voice”. I did not find Ms Rowlands’ submission that he is “assertive and argumentative” to be borne out by the evidence. For instance, his reply to her closing question “how do you know that?” (see my §34 above) was not, as she characterised it, asked aggressively; it seemed to me more of a genuine enquiry.
54. I must therefore turn to the other evidence before me. I next assess the consistency of the Applicant’s account. Although the social workers aver that this did not feature in their assessment, Ms Rowlands relies upon what she says are inconsistencies, and so it must figure in mine.
55. I can say at the outset that I do not accept everything he has said. I do not accept that he is entirely illiterate, to the point of being unable to sign his own name on the bottom of his statements. That is quite obviously incompatible with his use of a smartphone. Even if all he does is “watch videos” he still needs to be able to read a little, and use search terms. Similarly, it is impossible to see how he is able to communicate with his friends and solicitor via Whatsapp if he is that profoundly illiterate. Whilst I am prepared to accept that between war and refugee camp he has not received a formal education, his use of this phone indicates that he is able to read and write at least a little. I agree with Ms Rowlands that to this extent, he has probably been instructed, possibly by traffickers, to ‘stick to this story’. The fact that he has done so certainly detracts from his overall credibility as a witness.
56. That said, I am not persuaded that there is much, if any, evidential value in the “inconsistencies” identified by the Respondent today. The point is made by the social workers’ witness statements, and by Ms Rowlands, that if his mother told him “once” when his birthday was, and what age he was turning on that occasion, he cannot possibly know his age if he cannot say what year that took place. That is a good point. As I have said, it is not however one that was “weighted” by the social workers in the age assessment – they clearly did not think it all that significant then. I am also unable to accept that this is necessarily what the Applicant said. There is a discrepancy between the notes of Ms Moore and Ms Kareem. Only the latter has recorded the word “once”, and the Applicant denies having said it: of the three people present at that meeting, only one has made that record. It could therefore have been a mistake. Certainly today he says that his mother told him each year for a few years in a row. Second, there is the fact that the entire exchange was facilitated through an interpreter on the phone: as Stanley Burnton J (as he then was) identified in R (on the application of B) v London Borough of Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin) [at §52], this is less than ideal. There is obviously more room for misunderstanding, particularly where there is no ‘readback’ of the record offered. There is nothing in the point that when asked, in June 2024, how old he was, the Applicant responded ‘16’, when according to his claimed date of birth he would have been 15. I accept that this is explained by the evidence of Ms Laizer, a specialist in Kurdish culture, who confirms that a Kurd from Syria would calculate his age by starting at 1, rather than zero, as is customary in the UK.
57. In my general assessment of the Applicant’s credibility as a witness I found him to straightforward and spontaneous in his responses. I noted that he was candid in acknowledging some things that might count against him. He freely admitted to having smoked since he lived in Syria, and said that he had no problem at all in obtaining cigarettes; he also did not dispute that he has some grey hairs.
58. Overall I have found the chronology in the Applicant’s narrative to be internally and externally consistent with what is known about events in northern Syria. He states that he and his family life Syria for northern Iraq when he was about 3 years old: if he was born in 2008 this would coincide with the Arab Spring of 2011 when, as he puts it, there started to be “trouble” in the area around Aleppo. The family remained in a UNHCR camp in northern Iraq for 8 years, during which time their village was occupied by a succession of actors including Daesh, who committed the 2016 massacre to which Ms Rowlands’ referred in her cross examination. They were defeated the next year, but with the civil war against Assad continuing in that area, it would have taken some time before the situation was considered calm enough to contemplate return. This is consistent with the Applicant’s belief that he was about 11 or 12 when they returned to Kafar Saghir. If his family got home in 2019, this would have meant there were 3 years in which he knew HAM, playing football etc, before HAM left. It also accords with the Applicant’s recollection that he started ‘half fasts’ for Ramadhan whilst in the camp in Iraq, and has now completed 3-4 ‘full fasts’. This narrative makes sense, and I am satisfied that his evidence has had the degree of consistency one would expect of a young person from a culture where minimal significance is attached to birthdays.
59. I have attached some weight to the fact that the Applicant has been unable to produce any documents to confirm his stated age. I have done so in recognition of the fact that Syria is a country which has for many years issued birth certificates and identity cards to its nationals. I have however tempered the weight to be attached to this matter having had regard to the fact that there has been a long running civil war in that country, and that Kurds in a small village may not in any event have had the same degree of bureaucratic compliance as, for instance, urban Damascenes.
60. I have further attached some weight to the contested fact that the Applicant’s hair is flecked with grey. Although it is statistically the case that some individuals can have grey hair from childhood, I accept Ms Rowlands proposition that generally speaking, grey hair is an indication of maturity. So too is smoking. I have considered these matters in the round with the rest of the evidence.
61. In the end it has been the evidence of those witnesses who have spent time with the Applicant in non-formal or interview settings that had proved the most helpful in this case. Whilst Ms Moore and Ms Kareem have obviously accumulated a significant degree of experience in the area of age assessment, their exposure to the Applicant has necessarily been limited. They have not had the opportunity to see how he spends his time day to day, or assess his level of maturity in the context of interactions with others.
62. I found the evidence of MFH to be straightforward, helpful and compelling. He does not have any affiliation with the Applicant beyond having lived in the same asylum hostel, and I accept his evidence that he has come to court to support him for no other reason than he believes him. The Applicant told MFH that he was 16 (at the time of that conversation), and based on his own observations, this seemed to MFH to be about right. MFH explained how he immediately noticed that the Applicant seemed young to be in the hostel. He appeared to be scared and unhappy. Although he was in another room, this concern prompted MFH to make a special request that the Applicant be moved so that he and his Kurdish roommate could keep an eye on him. He describes how the Applicant watched cartoons and relied on others to help him cook and do the laundry. He saw him as a “little brother” and would accompany him on trips out of the hostel. Whilst Ms Rowlands correctly points out that MFH lacks the specialist training given to the social workers, he has had a considerable advantage over them in that he has been able to observe the Applicant at close quarters, over an extended period of time and in a natural, as opposed to a formal, setting. I found him to be a credible witness about his own views and I have attached considerable weight to his evidence.
63. Assessing the evidence of HAM is not quite so straightforward.
64. First there is the issue about how he and the Applicant came to meet in the UK. In her cross-examination Ms Rowlands quite properly put to HAM that this was a coincidence, one that she asked me to find so improbable as to be beyond belief. It was striking that HAM appeared almost bemused by this point, responding that in his faith such events have a particular name, as if the fact that the word ‘coincidence’ exists means they cannot be remarkable. As it happens I do not, with respect to Ms Rowlands, accept that this is actually a “crazy” coincidence at all. When HAM and his friend alighted from that broken train they knew they had to find a mosque to offer their prayers on that Ramadhan evening. The past decade has consistently seen Syrian appear in the top five nationalities of those seeking asylum in the UK. Syrians are, for the most part, Muslim. That means that many mosques in this country will be hosting Syrian worshippers. A great many of them will be Kurds from the north of the country, which has seen some of the most brutal fighting and human rights abuses. So whilst it is certainly a coincidence, it is not a “crazy” one, so improbable as to be inevitably untrue.
65. The second issue arising from HAM’s evidence was the question as to where he is in fact from. His written statement made it clear that the point of his involvement in this case was to say that he had known the Applicant in their home village. At no point in the month prior to hearing, when this statement had been served, did the Respondent ask to see any evidence to support the assertion that HAM is indeed from Kafar Saghir. Had this point been raised sooner, HAM would have had the opportunity to answer it, for instance by production of his 2022 screening interview, in which he would have given his address in Syria. It was therefore extremely unhelpful for the point to be raised, for the first time, during cross examination. Unaware that it might be in issue, HAM had not brought any of his old asylum paperwork with him, and following some discussion it became clear that it would take a some time for this to be obtained, which would have resulted in unnecessary delay. I do not accept Ms Rowlands’ submission that it was obvious that it would be raised. This seems to me to be a very specific challenge, distinct from the argument about whether HAM’s assessment of the Applicant’s age should be accepted, or indeed whether he is seeking to mislead the Tribunal about that matter.
66. It is in this context that I evaluate his refusal to answer any of Ms Rowlands’ questions about his experiences in that village during the war. Whilst Ms Rowlands did not, in the end, seek to adduce the Wikipedia entry on Kafar Saghir that she had based her cross examination on, she did ask me to note that HAM declined to answer these specific questions. In fact what I saw of his response was sufficient to satisfy me that HAM is telling the truth. As soon as he was asked about events in the village his demeanour changed. He looked genuinely distressed. When he explained that his uncle “was one of them”, that is to say one of the villagers caught up in the 2016 assault by Daesh, he looked angry and his voice wavered. I found it to be a natural and uncontrived response by a young person to being unexpectedly asked about deeply traumatic events.
67. I record that in reaching that conclusion I have considered, and rejected, Ms Rowlands submission that HAM admitted to being a liar during his evidence. In an attempt to calm him down and steer the subject away from the war I had asked HAM, with the consent of the advocates, about football. His response that whilst living in North Shields he pretends to be a Newcastle United supporter was funny, natural and not in any way indicative of him having lied to me. When I asked him about the Applicant’s footballing skills his response, again, was immediate, unrehearsed and looked entirely spontaneous: “he is a really good striker- much better than me!”, a line delivered with what appeared to be genuine admiration.
68. I have given some consideration to the fact that when asked to name other players in their football games, the Applicant and HAM did not give the same names. Had they done so this would obviously have been significant corroboration of their claims to have known each other back then. I am however in the end persuaded not to attach much weight to their failure to do so. As Mr Jagadesham points out, both witnesses said that many children from the village were involved in these games, and that although it was generally 5-a-side, this was with rotating squads according to who was available.
69. I am satisfied, on balance, that HAM is telling the truth, and that he knew the Applicant back in Syria. Although he cannot say with any certainty what the Applicant’s age is, he is able to say that it had always been his understanding that he is 2-3 years younger than he is. I have accordingly attached a great deal of weight to his evidence.
70. Drawing all of this together I am satisfied that the Applicant is correct when he says that his birthday is 12 August, and that his year of birth is 2008. I so find because the brief assessment made of his appearance is ultimately subjective, and unreliable for the reasons I have given. The observations made by the professionals in this case about his demeanour have today to be assessed in the context of the evidence that I now have before me, evidence unavailable to the social workers. Other young Kurdish men1 in that hostel – who lived with the Applicant day to day over a period of months – found him to be immature and childlike. I accept MFH’s evidence that he was moved to look out for the Applicant because he was concerned about his young age compared to the other men in the hostel. He and others helped him to cook, use the laundry, and generally navigate the world in a manner that would not have been necessary if he was in fact an adult close to their age. I have heard important evidence from HAM, a recognised refugee whom I found to be credible and compelling. His evidence does not in itself prove the Applicant’s age – he may of course have been mistaken about how old the Applicant was back in 2019-2022, but on balance I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that he believed the Applicant to be younger than him because he was. Finally I have found that the Applicant’s narrative is consistent, and consonant with what is known to have happened in Syria in the relevant period.
Decisions
71. The Applicant’s date of birth is declared to be 12 August 2008 and the claim therefore succeeds. I quash the decision of the Respondent to find that the Applicant is ‘clearly an adult’.
Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce,
19 September 2025
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
BETWEEN:
THE KING
on the application of
SMF
Applicant
-and-
DERBY CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
ORDER
BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce
ON 16 October 2025
UPON the Upper Tribunal having conducted a fact-finding hearing on 27 and 28 August 2025
IT IS DECLARED THAT:
1. The Applicant’s date of birth is 12 August 2008.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:
2. The Respondent’s decision, dated 5 June 2024, is quashed.
3. The Respondent shall pay the Applicant’s costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
4. There shall in any event be a detailed assessment of the Applicant’s publicly funded costs.
Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce
16 October 2025
Case No: JR-2025-LON-000091
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
1 September 2025
Before:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE
Between:
THE KING
on the application of
SMF
Applicant
- and -
DERBY CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
Hearing dates: 27-28 August 2025
Field House, London
For the Applicant: Mr V. Jagadesham of Counsel, instructed by Bhatia
Best Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms C. Rowlands of Counsel, instructed by Derby City Council
Legal Services
J U D G M E N T
1. The Applicant is a Syrian national. He has permission to seek judicial review of the Respondent’s decision dated 5 June 2024 that the Applicant is not the age he claims to be.
2. The Applicant states that he was born on 12 August 2008. That would today make him 17 years old. The Respondent local authority reject this, and have assessed him as being “clearly an adult”.
3. Permission to judicially review the Respondent’s decision was granted by His Honour Judge Rawlings, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, on the 14th January 2025.
4. The face-to-face hearing took place over the course of two days 27-28 August 2025. Assisted by court interpreters I heard live evidence from the Applicant on day 1, and two additional witnesses on the morning of day 2. The Applicant was given the appropriate warning not to discuss the case with his witnesses, and confirmed on day 2 that he had abided by that instruction. I shall refer to these witnesses by their initials. They are MFH, an Iranian national born in 1997 and HAM, a Syrian national born in 2005. On the afternoon of day 2 I heard submissions from the parties and reserved my decision, which I now give.
The Evidence
5. I have read and considered all of the evidence before me, but here I summarise the key evidence that assisted me in reaching my decision.
The Age Assessment
6. The age assessment was undertaken by two social workers employed by the Respondent on 5 June 2024, Eve Moore and Damaqu Kareem of the Children in Care and Specialist Migration Team.
7. A Kurdish Bahdini interpreter was provided by telephone. The conclusions of the social workers are recorded in a pro-forma entitled ‘Outcome of Brief Enquiry of Age’. They have ticked the box marked “We do not accept your claimed age/date of birth and believe you are clearly an adult (in physical appearance and demeanour) and therefore need to be supported by the Home Office”. In the section marked ‘any other comments' a handwritten note records:
“It is also important to point out that the DOB you gave does not match your age that you have claim. Therefore it is inconsistent information”
In the section provided to record the Applicant's response, it is noted that he told the social workers that if he was able to contact his mother he would be able to provide them with a birth certificate.
The Social Workers’ Evidence
8. Both of the social workers who undertook the brief enquiry into the Applicant’s age have provided witness statements.
9. Eve Moore has sworn two statements, dated 12 September 2024 and 3 April 2025. Ms Moore exhibits three documents: a photograph of the Applicant taken on 5 June 2024, the notes she took on that date, and the materials provided to her by the Home Office (which I summarise below). Ms Moore has been part of Derby Council’s Specialist Migration Team since 2022 and has prior experience of working with asylum seeker, and Syrian refugees.
10. Ms Moore describes how the brief enquiry into age took place, and explains that she took the lead whilst her colleague took independent notes. She states:
“…in our interaction with SMF we believed him to clearly be an adult. He had adult facial features, being creases round the eyes, angled jaw line, large hands, and a confident adult-like demeanour”
11. She goes on to explain that whilst they found some of the information he had provided to be inconsistent, this was “not weighted in our decision”. She points out that she and her colleagues undertake their child protection duties seriously, and that had they believed he was a child, or had any doubt about that, they would have taken him into care.
12. Ms Moore’s written note is provided. Pertinent to my decision is the following exchange:
“dob?
12/08/2008
How old?
16 years old
How do you know how old?
Mum told me
When?
When it was my birthday when she told me
Which birthday?
I don’t know”
13. Damaqu Kareem is the second social worker who took part in the brief enquiry into the Applicant’s age. She has worked for the Council since 2017, initially in Children’s Services, and then in the Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children team. She has signed a witness statement dated 3 April 2025 to which she has exhibited her notes, taken during the assessment.
14. Like Ms Moore, Ms Kareem refers to the Applicant having been unable to say when he learned his age. She writes:
“10. When asked how did he know his age and date of birth, SMF replied “my mother told me”. SMF went on to say, “once it was my birthday and that is when my mother told me.
11. When asked which birthday, SMF said ‘I don’t know’. Both Miss Moore and I have reviewed our handwritten notes where this is clearly recorded, and both clearly recall SMF stating that he did not know on what birthday his mother told him his age and date of birth…”
15. This version of the exchange, where the Applicant is recorded as saying that it was only “once” that his mother discussed his age/birthday with him, is indeed what has been recorded in Ms Kareem’s handwritten note, taken that day.
Home Office Assessment
16. These materials have been lodged by the Respondent as an exhibit to Ms Moore’s statement. They show that the Applicant claimed asylum on 24 May 2024 and record that two officers, one of at least Chief Immigration Officer (CIO) level, separately determined that the Applicant’s physical appearance very strongly suggests that he is significantly over 18 years of age. The notes section records that a social worker, P Okunja, was also present and agreed with this assessment. The notes explain that this assessment was reached taking the following matters into account:
“Physical Appearance:
He has strong adult like features.
He is slim body and uses his body stature to present himself as a child.
Has defined jawline, skin on his face appears mature.
Presents with visible Adams apple which is a sign applicant is a grown up man.
Has crow's feet lines in the corners of his eyes when he speaks. Has visible nasolabial lines with observed rings around his neck.
Has evidence of receding hairline with grey hair observed all over his head.
He has a deep and consistent voice which is indicative of an adult.
Has visible cheekbones of an adult there is evidence of long shaving requirement with stubble and acne.
He has wrinkles showing on his forehead with very visible veins on his neck.
Has strong hairy muscular arms, hands and fingers when displayed. He has tight broad shoulders which is a common feature in adults.
His nasiolabial folds are well defined, and his facial skin has no firmness or lustre which is associated with a young person of his claimed age.
Presents with well-developed nose proportionate to his face.
Presents with well- developed eyebrows that meet in the middle.
Presentation and demeanor:
Observed to maintain eye contact with officer. Reasoned as adults to adult conversation and there was no childness in his presentation.
Observed to be very assertive and confident and argumentative with attitude towards officers. Observed to speak in broken raised voice. Observed to try and calculate whenever asked of his timeline and could not directly respond to questions being asked of him”.
17. The ‘summary and decision’ states the conclusion reached that day, the 24 May 2024, was that the Applicant is in the age range of 24-26 years old.
The Applicant’s Evidence
18. SMF has provided three witness statements, dated 16 August 2024, 31 January 2025 and 3 April 2025 each of which he adopted before me.
19. The Applicant avers that he arrived in the United Kingdom by small boat on 24 May 2024. He was kept at Dover for two days before being transferred to a hotel somewhere in London for approximately 2 weeks. At this hotel he told staff members that he was a child, and they gave him the number to call Migrant Help. About one week after calling Migrant Help two ladies from social services came to visit him. The interview with the ladies took approximately 10 to 20 minutes and they were with the Applicant for no more than 40 minutes overall. An interpreter was used over the phone. The Applicant states that the ladies pointed out his grey hair, but did not give him the opportunity to comment. Had he had such an opportunity he would have told them that this was a common trait in his family and he can recall discussing it with his uncle.
20. The Applicant explains that before he left Syria he lived on a farm with just himself and his mother. His mother was unwell. It was therefore the Applicant who undertook all of the manual labour on the farm, assisted from time to time by his maternal uncle. The Applicant says that the journey from Syria to the United Kingdom was very hard and dangerous and that he was scared the entire time. He was beaten and abused by the agent and found the journey “very stressful”.
21. In his first witness statement the Applicant states that he did not know where his father was. In his third witness statement he says that his father died when he was very little. He was taken to fight for the Syrian Army and the Applicant’s mother has told him that he died fighting Daesh. The Applicant states that when he was 3 or 4 he, his mother and maternal uncle all fled Syria to live in a refugee camp in Iraqi Kurdistan. It was called Dumiz Camp.
22. The Applicant maintains that his date of birth is 12 August 2008 and that he knows this because his mother told him. She would bring it up around his birthday and this happened for several years, from when he was about 13.
23. In his statements the Applicant details the nature of his life in the asylum hotel. He says that he is afraid of other residents, especially those who are noisy, who take drugs, drink and smoke cigarettes. In his initial statement he mentions a Syrian friend who was slightly older than him. This friend assisted him by pooling their resources, buying food and cooking for them both. He has however now been moved and the Applicant does not know where he is.
24. The Applicant does not agree that his physical appearance and demeanour are that of an adult. He points out that recently he was ‘age challenged’ by a newsagent whilst trying to buy a can of Red Bull. It was only when he produced his Home Office identity document (which states that his date of birth is 1999) that the shopkeeper was prepared to sell him the drink. The Applicant acknowledges that he does sometimes shave, although he cannot really remember when he started. He also agrees to having some grey hairs, a trait in his family.
25. The Applicant states that he is unable to contact his family in Syria. He had a mobile phone with him which contained all their contact details, and whilst in France he was using it to speak to his mum. This phone got wet on the journey crossing the channel and it could not be fixed so he threw it away.
26. In his oral evidence the Applicant said that he is now living in a shared house with two other men. He moved there just a week before the hearing. He just stays in the house; he watches videos on Tiktok and he sleeps. He is in contact with friends and his solicitor by Whatsapp.
27. Ms Rowlands asked him about a photograph in the bundle in which he is seen in what looks like a carpark behind a commercial building. He is smoking a cigarette and is smiling. The Applicant could not remember when exactly it was taken but he thinks it was behind a supermarket near the accommodation – possibly Aldi or Lidl. The picture was taken by a friend. He admitted that he smokes regularly and that he started in Syria. He does not have a problem getting hold of cigarettes. Another photograph in the bundle was, the Applicant says, taken by social workers who told him to ‘smile’ so he did.
28. The Applicant said that he is originally from a small village called Kafar Saghir, which is near Qarbani. He would go there sometimes to shop with his uncle. In answer to Ms Rowland’s questions the Applicant was unable to say whether there was a school in Kafar Saghir – all he knows is that he didn’t go to one. He could not agree one way or the other with the information she had that it had a population of just over 3000: he doesn’t know. When it was put to him that school is compulsory in Syria the Appellant said that if its not suitable for you, you don’t go. He and his friends did attend Mosque. The Applicant thinks that he was about 12 when they moved back to the village. Many buildings were destroyed. Whilst he agreed that people had been killed there, he had not seen this for himself. His day to day life after they moved back consisted of farming. He would look after the animals. He would get up at about 6am and taken the animals out to graze, til about 7pm. Often he did so in the company of his uncle. When they got home they would wash, eat and sleep.
29. On days that he was not out with the animals he could play in the village street with his friends. The Applicant was asked about his witness, HAM. He said that he knew him from the village. He thinks that HAM is 2-3 years older than him. They would play football, usually 5-a-side. If there were more than 10 people would be ‘subbed in’. He named some of the other boys as Ali, Ahmed, Yassin and Tawfiq, but said that “there are many – these are just some names”. He said that he sometimes played attack, sometimes he would go in goal – they would swap positions. He knew HAM’s mother who he would see on the street where they were playing. She knew his own mother – the women would sometimes sit and talk to each other. The Applicant did not know HAM’s father; he could not say if he was alive or dead.
30. The Applicant and HAM were reunited in the Mosque in Derby. The Appellant was there giving Ramadhan prayer and this boy came up to him – he knew his name. At first the Appellant did not recognise him. HAM had left Syria sometime before the Applicant so they had not seen each other for a while. Only when HAM said who he was did the Applicant realise.
31. He does not know the exact reason that he and his family went to live in Iraq, but he thinks it was because of the “problems” in Syria. When he was in the camp he used to play with other children in the street – they would play football. He didn’t go to school there either. In the camp people spoke in the Kurmanji dialect of Kurdish, but also in Bahdini, which people spoke in the shops and out on the street, for instance when he was playing football he would use Bahdini to speak to the other boys.
32. The Applicant was asked about when he started to fast for Ramadhan. He said that at the beginning he would only do some of the days. He thinks this started in Iraq, when he was about 10. Only when he grew older did he start keeping full fasts throughout the month. As of the date of hearing he believes he had completed 3-4 full fasts for Ramadhan. He knows his birthday is in August because his mum used to tell him – he thinks the first time she said it was when they were in the camp. He knows now that he is 17. Ms Rowlands asked the Appellant about shaving. He said that he didn’t have a beard in Syria but he did shave before he left. When he visited the barber there that was to get his hair cut. The Appellant told me that he had had his hair cut about 10 days before the hearing and that the barber and also given him a shave then, using the same tool he used to cut his hair. The Applicant denied shaving himself.
33. Under cross-examination the Applicant said that he thinks he was 15/16 at the date that he left Syria. It was in the winter. Maybe January/February or March. When he left, his uncle had given him a mobile phone containing his number, but this was the one that got damaged by the water as he crossed the channel. He cannot remember much of the interview that was conducted as he arrived. He was cold, and freezing. He had been in France for two months with very little food and so was weak.
34. At the conclusion of her cross examination Ms Rowlands put it to the Applicant that he is at least five years older than he claims. He responded “how do you know that?”
The Testimony of MFH
35. MFH is an Iranian man who is seeking asylum in the UK. He has sworn a witness statement in this matter dated 28 February 2025.
36. MFH gives his own date of birth in March 1997. He first met the Applicant in June 2024 when he was moved to a hotel in Derby. At that time the Applicant was sharing his room with an African man, and after a while, another African man was placed in that same room. MFH reports that the Applicant was unhappy and scared of these two men because they were older than he was. MFH was in the room next door with two other Kurdish men. When one of them got moved on he asked if the Applicant could move him with them. After that the Applicant seemed much happier. MFH states that he treats the Applicant as if he is his ‘younger brother’. The Applicant has told MFH that he is 16 years old, and MFH believes him. He behaves as MFH did when he was a teenager. He watches cartoons. He does not know how to cook or how to look after himself: for instance he had to be taught how to use the laundry.
37. In his oral evidence MFH clarified that since he swore his statement he has moved away from the hostel. He now lives about 2 hours away so they have only seen each other 2-3 times since then. He stated that when they lived together he and the Applicant and other Kurds would go out walking in the town together. When he had arrived in the hotel the Appellant had another friend there who was helping him cook etc and after he moved on, MFH asked if the Appellant could move into his room. After that he would help him. He said “when I saw him I knew he was underage”. This did happen in the hotel – there was another boy living there who later on got moved into care. MFH agreed with Ms Rowlands that he had no specialised training to evaluate age – it was simply what he thought.
38. In answer to Ms Rowland’s questions MFH explained that although he is from Iran, and the Appellant is Syrian, their Kurdish dialects are mutually intelligible. Being Kurdish is important to both of them. It is how they define themselves. He however denied that this solidarity would prompt him to come to court and lie for someone just because they were a Kurd.
39. MFH was asked about the picture of the Appellant where he is smiling. Ms Rowlands pointed out that he had told the court that the Appellant was very unhappy living at the hotel at that time. MFH laughed. He said that everyone is comfortable at some point. He maintained that the Appellant had been unhappy there but he had treated him like he was his “little brother”.
The Testimony of HAM
40. HAM, who adopted his witness statement dated 25 March 2025, claims to have known the Applicant in Syria. HAM is a Syrian Kurd, now granted protection, who was born in October 2005. He avers that he came into contact with the Applicant in this country when they bumped into each other in a mosque in Derby. He had been on a train going somewhere else and a problem had developed on the train. They were instructed to get off the train at Derby and wait for another train. It was however Ramadhan and it was time for prayers, so he and his travelling companion decided to find a mosque, offer their prayers, and then resume their journey after they had broken their fast. It was there that he saw and recognised the Applicant as being a boy from his village. He approached him. The Applicant did not at first recognise him, but after a moment was happy to see him. They have stayed in touch since then, and when the Applicant told him that his age was being disputed, he volunteered to come to court to give evidence on his behalf.
41. HAM states that back in Kafar Saghir he and the Applicant were neighbours. They used to attend the same mosque, and that from time to time they would play football together. He recalls the Applicant’s mother being unwell. HAM says that when their mothers used to send food to each other they would always tell him to look after the Applicant because he was younger. He is thus confident in being able to say that whilst he does not know the Applicant’s exact date of birth, he believes him to be 2-3 years younger than he is. HAM left Syria in 2022. That was his written evidence, filed in compliance with directions on 24 July 2025.
42. In his oral evidence HAM explained that he has now lived in the UK for 3 years. He was 16 when he arrived and he is now 19. He answered the initial questions put to him by Ms Rowlands in a straightforward and pleasant manner. He agreed that they were from a small village, not far from Aleppo. There was a school in the village, but because they are Kurdish, and their language was forbidden in the school, he stayed at home and was taught by his sister. He and other boys also attended mosque to learn Qur’an – he would see the Applicant at these classes. They would also see each other playing football in the street. Although they had not known each other all their lives, they saw each other quite frequently at such matches and he considered him a friend.
43. Ms Rowlands then asked HAM a series of questions about the war and how it had impacted his village and family. HAM’s demeanour immediately changed. He folded his arms and looked as though he was trying to suppress tears. He refused to answer her questions. He said that he had agreed to come to speak about the Applicant, how he knew him and that he believed him to be younger than him. He had not however agreed to talk about any of these other things. He said that he had been in that village throughout the war, but said he would not talk about the things he had seen, or his family. He did not want to answer these questions. Ms Rowlands persisted. She put it to him that there had been a serious incident in the village in 2016 and asked whether he remembered it. HAM became very agitated and upset. He said “my uncle was one of them – I don’t want to talk”. At this point I intervened to ask Ms Rowlands what she was referring to. She said that she had “some information” about the village, and she was testing HAM to see if he was really from there. I pointed out that the “information” she was referring to did not appear to be in the bundle, had not otherwise been served and neither myself nor Mr Jagadesham had any idea what she was talking about. HAM was visibly upset and was refusing to answer any other questions about his family. At this point we took a short break.
44. As the hearing resumed Mr Jagadesham informed me that the information that Ms Rowlands was using as the basis of her cross examination was a Wikipedia entry on the Kafar Saghir, which amongst other things said that there had been a massacre in the village in 2016. This was the serious incident that Ms Rowlands had referred to in her questioning. Ms Rowlands confirmed that she was not seeking permission to adduce this evidence, but she wanted to be able to challenge HAM’s evidence that he was from this village. It was in her submission clear that the Respondent challenged everything that HAM said, and this included whether or not he had actually been from the same place as the Applicant. I indicated that I would not permit further cross examination on the basis of evidence that was not before me and said that if the Respondent wished to rely on such evidence an application should be made, giving the Applicant an opportunity to address it if he considered it appropriate to do so.
45. Ms Rowlands then continued her cross examination without further reference to the Wikipedia material. HAM told her that he could not remember when he had last seen the Applicant, other than it was a while ago. He confirmed that he had met him in the mosque in Derby. In response to her suggestion that this was a “crazy” coincidence he said “in our religion we call al-qadir – a miracle”. He rejected Ms Rowlands’ assertion that he had come to court to lie. He reiterated that he knew the Applicant from his village, and said that they had played football together with others on many occasions. Usually it was 5-a-side but if they wanted to play a big tournament they could get lots more people – Muhammad, Tahir, Zainab and many others he cannot remember all the names. Then 10 would play 10 whilst others sat on the bench and waited their turn.
46. Finally, in response to my questions, HAM said he was unable to say what football team the Applicant supported. I asked what position he played and he said “any, but he is a really good striker- much better than me!” I asked what football team he supported and he said “I live in North Shields now, so if anyone there asks me I say Newcastle. But in my heart, its Manchester United”. Asked to name some other players in the village he had said Muhammad, Zainab and Tahir.
Other Evidence
47. Nothing arises from the Applicant’s social media activity.
48. The Applicant has adduced expert evidence from two well-known experts on the Middle East in respect of how age is calculated. Sheri Laizer, an expert on Kurdish culture, religion and politics confirms that Syrian Kurds would commonly begin counting at 1, rather than 0
Consideration and Findings
49. I begin by considering the evidence before me about the Applicant’s appearance. I do so because this is a case where the Respondent relies very heavily on the assessment of the social workers about how the Applicant looks. It is true that the ‘brief enquiry’ outcomes form also makes reference to there being “inconsistency” in the Applicant’s responses, but both Ms Moore and Ms Kareem expressly state that whatever that inconsistency might have been, it was not “weighted” in their assessment. All that is therefore left are their shared opinions that the Applicant’s appearance and demeanour strongly suggested him to be an adult. In her submissions Ms Rowlands rightly pointed to the social workers’ expertise; she also highlighted their objectivity, informing me that another young migrant assessed on the same day was accepted to be a minor and was removed from the same asylum hostel where they met the Applicant. I confirm that I have no reason to doubt the expertise or objectivity of either of these professionals, and I recognise that they have both received specialist training.
50. Ms Rowlands further urged me to weigh in the balance the views expressed by the two immigration officers and another social worker, presumably somewhere in Kent, after the Applicant’s arrival on a small boat. They too concurred that he looked very obviously like an adult.
51. It is trite in this jurisdiction that we must approach appearance alone with a degree of caution. Young men typically start to develop facial hair in adolescence, but its thickness and rate of growth can vary. Life experience, and in particular traumatic life experience, can make someone appear older than they actually are; as can genetics, and exposure to the elements. A shepherd on the mountains of Kurdistan may, for instance, appear more ‘weatherbeaten’ than an individual of the same age growing up in a city. There is always the risk that a young person might be a few years younger or older than their appearance suggests, and Ms Rowlands tell me that this ‘grey area’ is baked into the assessment of age conducted by skilled social workers like Ms Moore and Ms Kareem. I acknowledge all of that.
52. I must also acknowledge that appearance, and interpretation of appearance, is to some degree subjective. The immigration officers who conducted the initial assessment in May 2024, for instance, recorded that the Applicant had a “receding hairline”; I have to say I found this difficult to square with my own observation of him made over the two days he was before me. It did not look to me that his hairline was receding in the slightest. Similarly, I was unable to see the wrinkles that they did. Whilst I agreed with the officers’ note that he has a “slim body”, I do not really understand the conclusion that they drew from that: [he] “uses his body stature to present himself as a child”. It seems to me that it is at least possible that he has a slim, childlike frame because he is in fact a child. I am therefore only able to place limited weight on the Applicant’s physical appearance.
53. Both the Respondent and the Home Office also emphasise the Applicant’s “confident adult-like demeanour”. Again, these are remarks that are of little assistance to me. Teenage boys are obviously capable of being confident and challenging; one might say that they are well known for it. Conversely, an adult might be timid and shy. The Immigration Officers’ record that the Applicant has a “deep and consistent voice” might be of more use, were it not contradicted by my own observations, and indeed their own note that he was seen to “speak in broken raised voice”. I did not find Ms Rowlands’ submission that he is “assertive and argumentative” to be borne out by the evidence. For instance, his reply to her closing question “how do you know that?” (see my §34 above) was not, as she characterised it, asked aggressively; it seemed to me more of a genuine enquiry.
54. I must therefore turn to the other evidence before me. I next assess the consistency of the Applicant’s account. Although the social workers aver that this did not feature in their assessment, Ms Rowlands relies upon what she says are inconsistencies, and so it must figure in mine.
55. I can say at the outset that I do not accept everything he has said. I do not accept that he is entirely illiterate, to the point of being unable to sign his own name on the bottom of his statements. That is quite obviously incompatible with his use of a smartphone. Even if all he does is “watch videos” he still needs to be able to read a little, and use search terms. Similarly, it is impossible to see how he is able to communicate with his friends and solicitor via Whatsapp if he is that profoundly illiterate. Whilst I am prepared to accept that between war and refugee camp he has not received a formal education, his use of this phone indicates that he is able to read and write at least a little. I agree with Ms Rowlands that to this extent, he has probably been instructed, possibly by traffickers, to ‘stick to this story’. The fact that he has done so certainly detracts from his overall credibility as a witness.
56. That said, I am not persuaded that there is much, if any, evidential value in the “inconsistencies” identified by the Respondent today. The point is made by the social workers’ witness statements, and by Ms Rowlands, that if his mother told him “once” when his birthday was, and what age he was turning on that occasion, he cannot possibly know his age if he cannot say what year that took place. That is a good point. As I have said, it is not however one that was “weighted” by the social workers in the age assessment – they clearly did not think it all that significant then. I am also unable to accept that this is necessarily what the Applicant said. There is a discrepancy between the notes of Ms Moore and Ms Kareem. Only the latter has recorded the word “once”, and the Applicant denies having said it: of the three people present at that meeting, only one has made that record. It could therefore have been a mistake. Certainly today he says that his mother told him each year for a few years in a row. Second, there is the fact that the entire exchange was facilitated through an interpreter on the phone: as Stanley Burnton J (as he then was) identified in R (on the application of B) v London Borough of Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin) [at §52], this is less than ideal. There is obviously more room for misunderstanding, particularly where there is no ‘readback’ of the record offered. There is nothing in the point that when asked, in June 2024, how old he was, the Applicant responded ‘16’, when according to his claimed date of birth he would have been 15. I accept that this is explained by the evidence of Ms Laizer, a specialist in Kurdish culture, who confirms that a Kurd from Syria would calculate his age by starting at 1, rather than zero, as is customary in the UK.
57. In my general assessment of the Applicant’s credibility as a witness I found him to straightforward and spontaneous in his responses. I noted that he was candid in acknowledging some things that might count against him. He freely admitted to having smoked since he lived in Syria, and said that he had no problem at all in obtaining cigarettes; he also did not dispute that he has some grey hairs.
58. Overall I have found the chronology in the Applicant’s narrative to be internally and externally consistent with what is known about events in northern Syria. He states that he and his family life Syria for northern Iraq when he was about 3 years old: if he was born in 2008 this would coincide with the Arab Spring of 2011 when, as he puts it, there started to be “trouble” in the area around Aleppo. The family remained in a UNHCR camp in northern Iraq for 8 years, during which time their village was occupied by a succession of actors including Daesh, who committed the 2016 massacre to which Ms Rowlands’ referred in her cross examination. They were defeated the next year, but with the civil war against Assad continuing in that area, it would have taken some time before the situation was considered calm enough to contemplate return. This is consistent with the Applicant’s belief that he was about 11 or 12 when they returned to Kafar Saghir. If his family got home in 2019, this would have meant there were 3 years in which he knew HAM, playing football etc, before HAM left. It also accords with the Applicant’s recollection that he started ‘half fasts’ for Ramadhan whilst in the camp in Iraq, and has now completed 3-4 ‘full fasts’. This narrative makes sense, and I am satisfied that his evidence has had the degree of consistency one would expect of a young person from a culture where minimal significance is attached to birthdays.
59. I have attached some weight to the fact that the Applicant has been unable to produce any documents to confirm his stated age. I have done so in recognition of the fact that Syria is a country which has for many years issued birth certificates and identity cards to its nationals. I have however tempered the weight to be attached to this matter having had regard to the fact that there has been a long running civil war in that country, and that Kurds in a small village may not in any event have had the same degree of bureaucratic compliance as, for instance, urban Damascenes.
60. I have further attached some weight to the contested fact that the Applicant’s hair is flecked with grey. Although it is statistically the case that some individuals can have grey hair from childhood, I accept Ms Rowlands proposition that generally speaking, grey hair is an indication of maturity. So too is smoking. I have considered these matters in the round with the rest of the evidence.
61. In the end it has been the evidence of those witnesses who have spent time with the Applicant in non-formal or interview settings that had proved the most helpful in this case. Whilst Ms Moore and Ms Kareem have obviously accumulated a significant degree of experience in the area of age assessment, their exposure to the Applicant has necessarily been limited. They have not had the opportunity to see how he spends his time day to day, or assess his level of maturity in the context of interactions with others.
62. I found the evidence of MFH to be straightforward, helpful and compelling. He does not have any affiliation with the Applicant beyond having lived in the same asylum hostel, and I accept his evidence that he has come to court to support him for no other reason than he believes him. The Applicant told MFH that he was 16 (at the time of that conversation), and based on his own observations, this seemed to MFH to be about right. MFH explained how he immediately noticed that the Applicant seemed young to be in the hostel. He appeared to be scared and unhappy. Although he was in another room, this concern prompted MFH to make a special request that the Applicant be moved so that he and his Kurdish roommate could keep an eye on him. He describes how the Applicant watched cartoons and relied on others to help him cook and do the laundry. He saw him as a “little brother” and would accompany him on trips out of the hostel. Whilst Ms Rowlands correctly points out that MFH lacks the specialist training given to the social workers, he has had a considerable advantage over them in that he has been able to observe the Applicant at close quarters, over an extended period of time and in a natural, as opposed to a formal, setting. I found him to be a credible witness about his own views and I have attached considerable weight to his evidence.
63. Assessing the evidence of HAM is not quite so straightforward.
64. First there is the issue about how he and the Applicant came to meet in the UK. In her cross-examination Ms Rowlands quite properly put to HAM that this was a coincidence, one that she asked me to find so improbable as to be beyond belief. It was striking that HAM appeared almost bemused by this point, responding that in his faith such events have a particular name, as if the fact that the word ‘coincidence’ exists means they cannot be remarkable. As it happens I do not, with respect to Ms Rowlands, accept that this is actually a “crazy” coincidence at all. When HAM and his friend alighted from that broken train they knew they had to find a mosque to offer their prayers on that Ramadhan evening. The past decade has consistently seen Syrian appear in the top five nationalities of those seeking asylum in the UK. Syrians are, for the most part, Muslim. That means that many mosques in this country will be hosting Syrian worshippers. A great many of them will be Kurds from the north of the country, which has seen some of the most brutal fighting and human rights abuses. So whilst it is certainly a coincidence, it is not a “crazy” one, so improbable as to be inevitably untrue.
65. The second issue arising from HAM’s evidence was the question as to where he is in fact from. His written statement made it clear that the point of his involvement in this case was to say that he had known the Applicant in their home village. At no point in the month prior to hearing, when this statement had been served, did the Respondent ask to see any evidence to support the assertion that HAM is indeed from Kafar Saghir. Had this point been raised sooner, HAM would have had the opportunity to answer it, for instance by production of his 2022 screening interview, in which he would have given his address in Syria. It was therefore extremely unhelpful for the point to be raised, for the first time, during cross examination. Unaware that it might be in issue, HAM had not brought any of his old asylum paperwork with him, and following some discussion it became clear that it would take a some time for this to be obtained, which would have resulted in unnecessary delay. I do not accept Ms Rowlands’ submission that it was obvious that it would be raised. This seems to me to be a very specific challenge, distinct from the argument about whether HAM’s assessment of the Applicant’s age should be accepted, or indeed whether he is seeking to mislead the Tribunal about that matter.
66. It is in this context that I evaluate his refusal to answer any of Ms Rowlands’ questions about his experiences in that village during the war. Whilst Ms Rowlands did not, in the end, seek to adduce the Wikipedia entry on Kafar Saghir that she had based her cross examination on, she did ask me to note that HAM declined to answer these specific questions. In fact what I saw of his response was sufficient to satisfy me that HAM is telling the truth. As soon as he was asked about events in the village his demeanour changed. He looked genuinely distressed. When he explained that his uncle “was one of them”, that is to say one of the villagers caught up in the 2016 assault by Daesh, he looked angry and his voice wavered. I found it to be a natural and uncontrived response by a young person to being unexpectedly asked about deeply traumatic events.
67. I record that in reaching that conclusion I have considered, and rejected, Ms Rowlands submission that HAM admitted to being a liar during his evidence. In an attempt to calm him down and steer the subject away from the war I had asked HAM, with the consent of the advocates, about football. His response that whilst living in North Shields he pretends to be a Newcastle United supporter was funny, natural and not in any way indicative of him having lied to me. When I asked him about the Applicant’s footballing skills his response, again, was immediate, unrehearsed and looked entirely spontaneous: “he is a really good striker- much better than me!”, a line delivered with what appeared to be genuine admiration.
68. I have given some consideration to the fact that when asked to name other players in their football games, the Applicant and HAM did not give the same names. Had they done so this would obviously have been significant corroboration of their claims to have known each other back then. I am however in the end persuaded not to attach much weight to their failure to do so. As Mr Jagadesham points out, both witnesses said that many children from the village were involved in these games, and that although it was generally 5-a-side, this was with rotating squads according to who was available.
69. I am satisfied, on balance, that HAM is telling the truth, and that he knew the Applicant back in Syria. Although he cannot say with any certainty what the Applicant’s age is, he is able to say that it had always been his understanding that he is 2-3 years younger than he is. I have accordingly attached a great deal of weight to his evidence.
70. Drawing all of this together I am satisfied that the Applicant is correct when he says that his birthday is 12 August, and that his year of birth is 2008. I so find because the brief assessment made of his appearance is ultimately subjective, and unreliable for the reasons I have given. The observations made by the professionals in this case about his demeanour have today to be assessed in the context of the evidence that I now have before me, evidence unavailable to the social workers. Other young Kurdish men1 in that hostel – who lived with the Applicant day to day over a period of months – found him to be immature and childlike. I accept MFH’s evidence that he was moved to look out for the Applicant because he was concerned about his young age compared to the other men in the hostel. He and others helped him to cook, use the laundry, and generally navigate the world in a manner that would not have been necessary if he was in fact an adult close to their age. I have heard important evidence from HAM, a recognised refugee whom I found to be credible and compelling. His evidence does not in itself prove the Applicant’s age – he may of course have been mistaken about how old the Applicant was back in 2019-2022, but on balance I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that he believed the Applicant to be younger than him because he was. Finally I have found that the Applicant’s narrative is consistent, and consonant with what is known to have happened in Syria in the relevant period.
Decisions
71. The Applicant’s date of birth is declared to be 12 August 2008 and the claim therefore succeeds. I quash the decision of the Respondent to find that the Applicant is ‘clearly an adult’.
Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce,
19 September 2025