JR-2025-LON-000483
- Case title:
- Appellant name:
- Status of case: Unreported
- Hearing date:
- Promulgation date:
- Publication date:
- Last updated on:
- Country:
- Judges:
The decision
JR-2025-LON-000483
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 BVT
Applicant
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent
ORDER
BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Kamara
HAVING considered all documents lodged and having heard Ms E Fitzsimons of counsel, instructed by Bhatia Best Solicitors, for the applicant and Mr T Tabori of counsel, instructed by GLD, for the respondent at a hearing on 16 February 2026.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. The applicant shall pay the respondent’s costs, to be assessed if not agreed.
3. The applicant having the benefit of cost protection under s 26 of LASPO 2012 and regulation 5 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013, these costs shall not be enforced without the permission of the court and the amount the applicant is to pay should be determined on an application by the respondent in accordance with s 26 LASPO.
4. There shall be detailed assessment of the applicant’s publicly funded costs.
Signed: T Kamara
Upper Tribunal Judge Kamara
Dated: 6 July 2026
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): 13/07/2026
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-2025-LON-000483
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR
6 July 2026
Before:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KAMARA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE KING
on the application of
BVT
Applicant
- and –
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
BARNSLEY METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
Interested Party
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ms E Fitzsimons
(instructed by Bhatia Best Solicitors), for the applicant
Mr T Tabori
(instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the respondent
Hearing date: 16 February 2026
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judge Kamara:
1. The applicant has been granted permission for a judicial review of the respondent’s decision dated 6 August 2024. That decision is the outcome of an age assessment by which the respondent assessed the applicant’s date of birth to be 23 March 2002, making him 23 years old as at the date of the hearing.
2. The applicant claims that his date of birth is 8 August 2006, making him 19 years old at the date of the hearing. The sole issue for resolution in these proceedings is the applicant’s age.
3. The factual background of this case is set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The applicant’s personal, immigration and age assessment history set out in that document is as follows:
i. The applicant is a Vietnamese national, who claims he was born on 8 August 2006, who claims to have arrived in the United Kingdom around October 2020. The applicant has previously presented four aliases.
ii. In April 2021, the applicant came to the attention of the UK authorities when he was encountered by South Yorkshire Police executing a drugs warrant at an address in Sheffield. The applicant provided an alias and claimed he was 14 years old. He later changed his stated age to 16 years old with a DOB of 25 March 2005. He was considered a minor; therefore, all criminal charges against him were dropped, and he was referred to the Interested Party’s (IP) Children Services. On 27 April 2021, the applicant became under the care of the IP and accommodated by them for the first time.
iii. On 6 May 2021, a referral was made by the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) to the Single Competent Authority (SCA). Subsequently, on 10 May 2021, a positive Reasonable Grounds (RG) decision was made by the SCA.
iv. The applicant was accommodated by the IP for around a month before he went missing and became a missing young person until his case was closed by the IP in March 2023, when he would have turned 18 according to the DOB of 23 March 2005.
v. On 12 October 2023, the applicant became known to UK authorities again and claimed asylum on the same day. This was also when the applicant came forward with his claimed ‘actual’ name and DOB of 8 August 2006. He was referred to Newcastle Children Services and a second referral was made by the NRM to SCA.
vi. On 23 November 2023, a negative RG decision was made by the SCA.
vii. On 12 December 2023, the applicant was passed back into the care of the IP and was treated as a child in their care. On 25 May 2024, the IP made a referral to the National Age Assessment Board (NAAB) upon the respondent’s refusal to accept the applicant’s stated age due to the differing names and dates of birth the applicant has previously presented. The IP is in agreement that an age assessment is required for the same reasons, but the Applicant remained treated as a child. The NAAB age assessment commenced on 7 June 2024, followed by assessment sessions on 11 June 2024, 13 June 2024, 19 June 2024 and a minded to meeting on 26 June 2024.
viii. The applicant has stated that he was trafficked as a child into the UK from Vietnam and forced to cultivate cannabis in order to pay for his father’s gambling debt. He stated that he was never paid for his work, but was told that his work will contribute towards his father’s debt. The applicant has also stated that he was re-trafficked to a different cannabis farm in Scotland when he went missing in 2021, and escaped in 2023 due to him being subjected to regular abuse by his captors.
ix. The assessment outcome meeting was on 6 August 2024, and the respondent concluded that the applicant is 22 years old with a DOB of 23 March 2002. On the same day, the applicant was moved from his placement address to an adult NASS hotel accommodation.
x. Further on 13 February 2025, the SCA reached a Conclusive Grounds decision and found that the applicant was a victim of modern slavery, in particular for Child Criminal Exploitation.
xi. On 3 March 2025, the IP agreed to provide the applicant with leaving care provisions pending the outcome of the final contested hearing. As of 5 June 2025, the applicant continues to be residing in asylum support accommodation in the absence of suitable Children Act Support despite the IP having agreed to provide appropriate support to him being a ‘former’ child.
The Finding of Fact hearing
4. On 16 February 2026, the applicant gave evidence with the assistance of a Vietnamese speaking interpreter. A psychological report from Dr Sarah Heke, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, dated 9 September 2025 was before the Upper Tribunal. Dr Heke diagnosed the applicant with severe Complex PTSD with comorbid severe Major Depressive Disorder and stated that the applicant’s “ability to recall and/or recount past events during an age assessment session and/or a Home Office interview and a Tribunal hearing is significantly impaired due to the severity of his mental health problems and his vulnerability as a victim of trafficking.” She recommends that he be treated as a vulnerable witness and that the following measures, outlined in the Joint Presidential Guidance Note No. 2 of 2010: Child, Vulnerable Adult and Sensitive Appellant at §10.2, are applied:
10.2 During the hearing
i. Speak clearly and directly to the appellant/witness. Demonstrate active
listening.
ii. Use plain English and avoid legal and other jargon; be sensitive to specific communication needs for reasons of language or disability.
iii. Ensure questions asked are open ended wherever possible; broken down to avoid having more than one idea or point in each question and avoid suggesting a particular answer.
iv. Curtail improper or aggressive cross examination; control the manner of questioning to avoid harassment, intimidation or humiliation. Ensure that questions are asked in an appropriate manner using a tone and vocabulary appropriate to the appellant’s age, maturity, level of understanding and personal circumstances and attributes. Pay special attention to avoid re-traumatisation of a victim of crime, torture, sexual violence.
v. Be sensitive to the possibility that the witness/appellant has understood the question, and, if there is a risk of confusion, check this.
vi. Ensure that adequate breaks are given during the hearing; check at intervals throughout the hearing that the appellant is comfortable and understands the proceedings; don’t wait to be asked.
5. Mr Tabori did his best to question the applicant in line with the adjustments identified in the said report. The applicant was also provided with a number of breaks throughout his evidence.
6. Ms Vicki Kerr also gave evidence on the applicant’s behalf, remotely.
7. Thereafter, both representatives provided detailed submissions, relying on their respective skeleton arguments.
8. An issue arose towards the end of the applicant’s evidence regarding his Facebook account. He clarified that he had not deleted his account but merely deleted the Facebook application on his telephone when he began using TikTok.
9. In the hearing bundle, there was a statement from a then trainee solicitor, Ms Chan, who stated as follows:
I certify that on 12 March 2025 and 17 March 2025 I conducted a proportionate search of the Applicant’s social media accounts, in accordance with paragraph 4(b) of the Directions Order sealed on 26 February 2025 of Upper Tribunal Lawyer, Asim Hussain. I confirm that all material disclosure has been provided to all parties on 26 March 2025.
10. The only disclosure of social media use made on behalf of the applicant was a single page in the joint bundle, which provided his TikTok username and associated details. That page also mentioned a Facebook account as a third-party connection. The data shown on that single page was difficult to decipher. Ms Fitzsimons submitted that this disclosure was sufficient in view of the applicant’s evidence that he did not post on TikTok but only used it to view videos.
11. Owing to the clarification of the status of the applicant’s Facebook profile, Ms Fitzsimons undertook to obtain a further witness statement by 20 February 2026. She was unable to clarify matters at the hearing because the solicitor with conduct of the case was on a sabbatical abroad, albeit with access to emails. I agreed to await this evidence, as well as any reply from the respondent made within 48 hours of receipt of any further evidence before deciding this matter.
12. Bhatia Best solicitors wrote to the Upper Tribunal on 20 February 2026, copied to the respondent the same day. Several points were made in that letter, but the most important was that the applicant’s Facebook account may now have been found. It was explained that there had been difficulties with re-setting the account password which meant that the solicitor would need to meet the applicant in person. Further time was sought for this to be achieved. The Upper Tribunal acknowledged receipt of this letter and allowed until 4 pm on 2 March 2026 for the additional statement and any accompanying material to be provided and a further 48 hours for the respondent’s reply.
13. A further statement was provided by Mr Bhatia dated 2 March 2026 in which he apologised for the earlier failure to identify and disclose the applicant’s Facebook account. Mr Bhatia further explained that he had gained access to the applicant’s Facebook account and referred to having served the account data on the Tribunal and the respondent. Mr Bhatia stated that he had conducted a proportionate search for an Instagram or Snapchat social media accounts belonging to the applicant and was unable to identify any. A link to a shared file containing the applicant’s Facebook data was provided. The shared file contained a considerable quantity of data contained in ten folders, some of which contained subfolders with further information.
14. In terms of commentary on the Facebook data, the only observation made by Mr Bhatia was that the account reflected the applicant’s claimed date of birth.
15. Owing to the amount of data, the respondent was granted additional time to review it and to compile a response. This, the respondent did by way of an 8-page witness statement from Ms A Ahmed, the Devolved Government Lead and Social Worker Team Manager in the National Age Assessment Board of the Home Office, dated 6 March 2026. That statement contained an assessment of the Facebook data and was accompanied by 250 pages of exhibits.
16. A response to Ms Ahmed’s witness statement was filed on 13 March 2026, by way of an email from Mr Bhatia, which stated as follows.
Further to the below email from the GLD and in light of the witness statement of Amna Ahmed relating to the Applicant’s Facebook account, it has come to my attention that paragraph 11 of the statement could be interpreted misleadingly and contrary to the evidence. I hope the below clarifies matters and I would be grateful if this email could be placed before Judge Kamara.
The Respondent’s witness states at paragraph 11, ‘The date of birth listed on his Facebook account is 08 August 2006, which corresponds with the date he claimed. However, there was a change made to this birthdate entry on 15 October 2023’. The Respondent’s witness statement goes on to suggest that the Applicant changed his date of birth on his Facebook account following an interview with the Home Office on 12 October 2023 to correspond with his account given at the time.
The ‘Profile update history’ section of the Facebook data shows that the date of birth on this account has been listed as ‘August 8, 2006’ since 28 August 2021 (i.e. since the date his Facebook profile was first created). Please see below a screenshot evidencing the same.
17. No issue was taken by Mr Bhatia to any other aspect of Ms Ahmed’s statement.
18. In the absence of any further communications from the parties, on 7 April 2026, the Tribunal ordered further and final submissions.
19. Succinct written submissions were provided by the respondent which addressed the applicant’s concern regarding the date of birth on the Facebook account.
20. On behalf of the applicant, the Tribunal received a 96-page bundle consisting of a further witness statement from the applicant dated 21 April 2026, a further statement from Ms Chan (who is now qualified as a solicitor) dated 21 April 2026 and further evidence of social media activity, most of which is in Vietnamese and with no translations provided. In addition, there were short written submissions from Ms Fitzsimons.
21. In Ms Chan’s second witness statement she explains the steps she took to look for the applicant’s social media accounts. She acknowledges that these steps did not include searching Facebook’s ‘Forgotten Password link,’ which Mr Bhatia had done. Otherwise, Ms Chan took issue with the conclusion reached by Ms Ahmed on the Facebook material in relation to the amount of contact between the appellant and his family
Evidence summary
22. In reaching this decision I have had the benefit of the totality of the evidence upon which the parties seek to rely, including the witness statements and the oral evidence of the applicant and supporting witnesses.
23. I have also considered the social care records disclosed by the Interested Party as well as the age assessment itself and the underlying documents. For the avoidance of any doubt, I have addressed the question as to the applicant’s age and date of birth, without any predisposition that the applicant is or is not a child.
24. In reaching my determination on the applicant’s date of birth and age I have assessed all the evidence in the round in determining what, if any weight to attach to that evidence.
The applicant’s case
25. In his witness statement dated 5 November 2024 at paragraphs 5-6, the applicant explains how he knows that he was born on 8 August 2006, in the Lunar year of the dog. There he explains that he learnt his date of birth while at school in Vietnam and that when he commenced secondary school, he had a student card which had his birth date on it. He states that he believes that he has a birth certificate but that he has never seen it. He does not wish to speak to his family because he fears that his father will force him to work, as he had after being arrested in 2021. The applicant does not have any document which supports his account of his age.
26. A second witness statement dated 9 May 2025 provides an update to the earlier statement and addresses various issues. What the applicant had to say about his social media use is reproduced here.
I opened a TikTok account when I was 17 years old with a Vietnamese username which means ‘I am not a handsome boy’ in English. My date of birth recorded on there is 8 August 1988 because TikTok would not allow me to create an account using my date of birth at the time, so I selected a year at random that made me older than 18. I learnt about this application from a friend in the UK and wanted to speak with him on there. He told me that TikTok only allowed users 18 or over to use the chat function. I have not posted videos of myself on TikTok and only use it to watch short videos as a form of entertainment.
27. The applicant has given a detailed account of distressing circumstances prior to his arrival the United Kingdom as well as traumatic events which occurred after his arrival. He has been recognised as a refugee as well as a victim of trafficking based on this account. As there is no dispute in relation to these facts which are helpfully summarised in Ms Fitzsimons’ skeleton argument at [10-24] I will not refer to them save where necessary.
28. The third witness statement which was produced after the hearing had concluded was made in response to the witness statement of Ms Ahmed. In short, the applicant stated that he was not in control of his Facebook account prior to October 2023 as it belonged to a person he had briefly met in a hotel and whom he could no longer contact. The applicant states that he updated the account with his contact number on 15 January 2024. The applicant denied being responsible for the Facebook activity from 2022 and 2023, explained that the photographs of him at a wedding were taken in the UK in 2024 when he was already an adult and that a further photo of him was also taken in the UK. Otherwise, the applicant maintained the account of his circumstances which he had provided in his earlier witness statements.
29. Ms Fitzsimons’ further submissions emphasised that the applicant should not be held responsible for his solicitor’s failings and that the Facebook evidence was of little probative value. Otherwise, the submissions reiterate points made by the applicant in his third witness statement and by Ms Chan in her third witness statement. Ms Fitzsimons submitted that greater weight ought to be placed on the appellant’s oral evidence and presentation at the hearing as well as the other evidence before the Tribunal which supported his account as to his claimed age.
The respondent’s case
30. The respondent relies upon the outcome of the age assessment, which was carried out between 11-26 June 2024, with the decision notified on 6 August 2024. The analysis in that report can be summarised as follows.
31. Based on his appearance, behaviour, education, and the ‘job‑interview’ evidence, the assessors believed that the applicant was probably born in 2002, making him 18 years old or more when leaving Vietnam and thus already an adult upon arrival in the UK. The assessors adopted the date of birth the applicant gave the police in March 2021, as it was recalled quickly and confidently, considered more plausible and thought likely to reflect his true day and month of birth. The specific concerns raised by the assessors are considered later in this judgment, alongside the applicant’s oral evidence.
32. Sabia Imran, an Age Assessment Social Worker employed by the Home Office’s National Age Assessment Board (NAAB), provided a statement on the respondent’s behalf, but was not called as a witness.
33. The second assessing social worker has since left the NAAB’s employ. Ms Imran’s statement reiterated the reasons given in the Age Assessment decision for concluding the applicant was an adult.
34. The post- hearing witness statement of Ms Ahmed identified what were described as ‘anomalies’ in the appellant’s account which went to his age. They include, but are not limited to, details of his education, his contact with his family and aspects relating to his account of being trafficked.
The legal framework
35. The role of the Upper Tribunal is to determine, on the balance of probabilities, the applicant’s age and date of birth.
36. The age assessment for the applicant was carried out under the provisions of Part 4 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Section 50 of the Act provides that a local authority may refer an age-disputed young person to a ‘designated person’ for an age assessment. A designated person is an official of the Secretary of State who is designated to conduct age assessments under sections 50 or 51. Section 51 of the Act provides that an age assessment carried out by a designated person is binding on the Secretary of State and immigration officers when exercising immigration functions.
37. The Secretary of State is permitted to make regulations under section 53 of the 2022 Act about the processes to be used in age assessments, at the time of the hearing there was no statutorily prescribed procedure. The age assessment in this case therefore remains subject to the principles and guidance developed in the existing body of caselaw.
38. Where the age assessment of the local authority is in dispute, it is for the Tribunal or Court to reach its own assessment of age as a matter of fact.
39. It was recognised by Lady Hale in R (A) -v- Croydon LBC [2009] UKSC 8, that this was not a task without difficulty:
But the question whether a person is a “child” is a different kind of question. There is a right or a wrong answer. It may be difficult to determine what that answer is. The decision-makers may have to do their best on the basis of less than perfect or conclusive evidence. But that is true of many questions of fact which regularly come before the courts. That does not prevent them from being questions for the courts rather than for other kinds of decision-makers.
40. In R (B) -v- Merton LBC [2003] EHHC 1689, the following guidance was given by Stanley Burnton J, as to the correct approach to that task:
“the assessment of age in borderline cases is a difficult matter, but it is not complex. It is not an issue which requires anything approaching a trial, and judicialisation of the process is in my judgement to be avoided. It is a matter which may be determined informally, provided safeguards of minimum standards of enquiry and of fairness are adhered to.”
“I do not think it is helpful to apply concepts of onus of proof to the assessment of age by local authorities. Unlike cases under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, there is in the present context no legislative provision placing an onus of proof on the applicant. The local authority must make its assessment on the material available to and obtained by it. This should be no predisposition, divorced from the information and evidence available to the local authority, to assume that an applicant is an adult, or conversely that he is a child…”
41. In determining the applicant’s age, the Tribunal is not confined to choose between the positions of the parties; R (W) v London Borough of Croydon [2012] EWHC 1130 [3].
42. The nature of the Tribunal’s inquiry under the Children Act 1989 is inquisitorial, R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590 [§ 21]. As for how it goes about this inquiry, the Tribunal must decide the applicant’s age on the balance of probability.
43. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the focus of this case is on the credibility of the applicant’s account of his age. In MVN v LB Greenwich [2015] EWHC Civ 1942 (Admin), [27] it is said that the primary focus must be ‘on the credibility of the person's evidence concerning his or her age’ and that this requires ‘particular importance’ to be given to their evidence concerning their age, above credibility more generally.
Analysis
Age assessment report
44. The age assessment runs to around 50 pages and is a detailed and thorough piece of work. The age assessment refers to inconsistencies in the applicant’s accounts which were considered to damage his credibility. Those inconsistencies include the use of multiple aliases and dates of birth which were not satisfactorily explained. It was also felt that he had given conflicting accounts of several aspects of his journey to various professionals which led the assessors to find that he was not credible. In relation to his relatives, the assessors considered that the applicant had provided three different names for his father, given an inconsistent account as to his siblings and had offered no reasonable explanation.
45. The assessment concluded that the applicant’s claimed age was not plausible based on the reference in a medical report to the applicant attending a job interview in Vietnam when according to his account he would have been aged 13. The assessors considered that the applicant’s account of starting school at age 5 was inconsistent with Vietnamese education norms and that his claim to have been “halfway through” Grade 7 in September 2019 was inconsistent with the Vietnamese school year. It was also thought that his intellect and English‑learning ability suggested more advanced education and maturity than claimed.
46. As for the applicant’s physical appearance and maturity, the assessors felt that his physical development appeared fully complete, inconsistent with being him being 17 at the time of the assessment. A comparison was made of the applicant’s height, weight and body type and the assessors stated that these features were average or normal for his claimed age, but that physical presentation was an unreliable by itself. The assessors felt that the applicant’s demeanour was more adult‑like than child‑like.
47. In considering behaviour and motivation, the assessors considered whether the applicant’s changing identity may have been used to avoid criminal consequences (e.g., cannabis cultivation arrests) and gain access children’s services support by claiming to be under 18. It was noted the applicant had only admitted his “true” details after the fingerprint match.
48. The assessors rejected the possibility that the scale and nature of the inconsistencies could be explained solely by trauma‑related memory issues. The reasons for assigning the date of birth of 23 March 2002 was that this was the date of birth the applicant gave the police in March 2021. The assessors considered that the applicant recalled that date of birth quickly and confidently and that this was likely to reflect his true day and month of birth.
49. Sabia Imran, one of the assessing social workers has provided a witness statement dated 9 May 2025. In that statement sets out her experience she confirms that the assessment was conducted over several sessions in June 2024, with an Appropriate Adult and an interpreter present throughout and, otherwise, summarises the conclusions reached, as set out in the report itself.
50. The age assessment was particularly careful and thorough. Indeed, there has been no challenge to any aspect of the age assessment process or report. I place considerable weight on this evidence.
The medical evidence
51. The totality of the medical evidence has been considered. That evidence mainly consists of a psychological report on the applicant, which is dated 9 September 2025 prepared by Sarah Heke, a Consultant Clinical Psychologist with 31 years of clinical experience, including 16 years at consultant level specialising in trauma. Her report is based on clinical interview, behavioural observations, review of records, and relevant documentary material. There was no challenge to the content of her report on behalf of the respondent. I find that she expresses her conclusions to the Tribunal within her expertise and I place significant weight upon them.
52. Dr Heke concludes that the applicant presents with severe Complex Post‑traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) and severe Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). In her opinion, he meets the full diagnostic criteria for both conditions. The CPTSD is manifested in emotional dysregulation, persistent difficulties with trust and relationships, a markedly diminished sense of self, and entrenched feelings of worthlessness and defeat. The MDD symptoms include persistent low mood, anhedonia, insomnia, fatigue, impaired concentration, and recurrent suicidal ideation. She also notes features of prolonged grief arising from the applicant’s separation from his mother and sisters.
53. The expert considers these conditions to be directly attributable to the applicant’s reported history of trafficking and prolonged abuse. According to the account he gave, he was trafficked from the age of 13 through multiple countries before being brought to the UK in conditions involving exploitation, violence, and coercion. He was also re‑trafficked within the UK. Dr Heke finds his presentation to be clinically consistent with victims of trafficking, including Vietnamese minors subject to similar exploitation patterns. She does not consider that he is exaggerating or fabricating symptoms; in her view, his avoidance, emotional responses, and difficulties disclosing traumatic material are characteristic of severe trauma rather than deliberate withholding.
54. The expert explains that the appellant’s PTSD, depressive symptoms, and hyperarousal significantly impair his ability to give a full, detailed, and chronological account of past events. Trauma of this nature affects memory retrieval, concentration, and narrative coherence. Dr Heke refers to recognised research indicating that inconsistencies in accounts are common among trauma survivors and should not be treated as indicative of dishonesty. She also notes that cultural factors may contribute to over‑generalised recall. Shame, distress, and avoidance further inhibit disclosure, and these were all evident during her assessment.
55. Dr Heke considers the applicant to be highly vulnerable to re‑trafficking both in the UK and in Vietnam because he lacks the psychological resilience and personal resources necessary to protect himself from coercion or exploitation.
56. In relation to participation in legal proceedings, Dr Heke states that the applicant has the mental capacity to give evidence, participate in interviews, and instruct his representatives. However, his ability to provide a coherent and detailed account is likely to be compromised under stress, especially where he feels disbelieved. Distress may impair recall and narration.
57. Finally, Dr Heke indicates that the applicant requires trauma‑focused psychological treatment, including a stabilisation phase followed by EMDR or Narrative Exposure Therapy. She considers his prognosis to be positive if treatment is provided within a stable environment, but poor in circumstances of continuing instability or the absence of appropriate therapeutic intervention.
Witness statements in support of the applicant
58. A witness, Jessica Kelly, provided a witness statement in support of the applicant’s claimed age. Ms Kelly was, ultimately, unable to attend the hearing. Ms Kelly has been employed by the Refugee Council since 2022, currently working as a Casework Advisor within Youth Services. She has extensive professional experience supporting unaccompanied asylum‑seeking children, including those undergoing age assessments and has also worked in Vietnam in key‑worker roles. She has regularly acted as an appropriate adult in age assessments and has supported numerous age‑disputed children.
59. Ms Kelly supported the applicant between August and October 2024 following his placement in adult accommodation after being assessed as an adult. She describes significant distress experienced by the Applicant while placed in a hotel with an adult, including an episode in which he was mistakenly evicted due to confusion around his identity. Ms Kelly states that throughout her contact with the applicant, his presentation was consistent with his stated age, including his reliance on adult guidance, emotional vulnerability, and peer relationships with others aged 17–18. She reports that his physical appearance, behaviour, and interactions align with those of someone of his claimed age, and that she has had no reason to doubt his stated date of birth. I find that there is no reason to doubt Ms Kelly’s evidence but taking into consideration that she was unavailable for cross-examination, I slightly reduce the degree of weight I have placed upon her evidence.
60. A second witness, Lathangie Baskaran has also provided a statement in support of his claimed age and was also unable to attend the hearing. Ms Baskaran is a Casework Advisor in the Refugee Council’s My View team and describes their involvement with the applicant in early 2024. Concerns are outlined regarding his placement in adult Section 95 accommodation, his susceptibility to influence, and clear indicators of potential re‑exploitation, including the applicant considering accepting offers of free accommodation and money from adults he scarcely knew. The applicant’s weekly remote sessions were focused on safeguarding him, discouraging risky decisions, and addressing practical matters. Ms Baskaran notes that the applicant struggled with social skills, relied heavily on adults from his own community, and formed attachments easily. His situation improved after relocation to dispersal accommodation and receipt of a positive NRM decision, after which responsibility for his support was transferred to a specialist provider. I have placed a moderate amount of weight on this report, taking into consideration that the witness was not cross-examined.
Social media evidence
61. On 26 March 2025, Mei Kei Chan, then a trainee-solicitor with Bhatia Best Solicitors provided a witness statement addressing the social media evidence directions made by the Tribunal. She stated as follows:
I certify that on 12 March 2025 and 17 March 2025 I conducted a proportionate search of the Applicant’s social media accounts, in accordance with paragraph 4(b) of the Directions Order sealed on 26 February 2025 of Upper Tribunal Lawyer, Asim Hussain. I confirm that all material disclosure has been provided to all parties on 26 March 2025.
62. That disclosure consisted of a single page of data which referred to a TikTok account linked to the applicant and a ‘Third Party Connection’ to Facebook.
Oral evidence
63. The Tribunal heard evidence from Vicki Kerr who provided a witness statement dated 8 May 2025.
64. Ms Kerr is a Team Manager at Future19 with seven years’ experience supporting people in OFSTED‑registered accommodation for 16–18‑year‑olds. In the witness statement, she explains that the applicant resided at the home between March and August 2024 until he was ‘aged out’ following his age assessment. She states that staff supported him in developing essential life skills, including budgeting, cooking and attending appointments, and that he presented initially as emotionally fragile, introverted and traumatised, requiring several months to build trust. During his stay he progressed socially and linguistically, aided by a close friendship with another 17‑year‑old Vietnamese resident. Ms Kerr remarks that the applicant integrated well with peers, formed positive relationships within the home, and displayed no signs of being significantly older than other residents, giving her no concerns regarding his age during his placement.
65. Ms Kerr’s oral evidence was entirely consistent with her witness statement. Given that, the absence of any criticism of her evidence on behalf of the respondent, as well as her experience working with the 16-18 age group, I am satisfied that Ms Kerr’s opinion as to the applicant’s age is deserving of a substantial degree of weight.
Applicant’s oral evidence
66. In examination in chief, the applicant relied upon his two witness statements dated 5 November 2024 and 9 May 2024. Thereafter he was tendered for cross-examination during which he was questioned regarding several themes. Those themes included the applicant’s contact with his family in Vietnam, the varying names and dates of birth the applicant had provided for himself as well as for his father, the applicant’s alleged evasiveness when giving his account to the SCA, his health assessment, that he had a large tattoo inked on his chest, a job interview in Vietnam, social media activity and his accommodation in the United Kingdom. I will not set out the details of the applicant’s oral evidence here as, where relevant, this will be addressed in my overall conclusions. I will add that at times, I observed the applicant in tears during his oral evidence and note that several breaks were taken for this reason.
Overall conclusions
67. I conclude, for the reasons set out below, that the applicant is not the age he claims to be and that it is more likely than not that his date of birth is 23 March 2002, making him a young adult, aged eighteen, at the time he arrived in the United Kingdom during October 2020 and twenty-three at the time of the hearing.
68. In reaching my conclusion as to the applicant’s age I have taken into consideration the evidence which goes to support his account. That evidence includes Dr Heke’s report, summarised above, which identifies that the applicant suffers from complex PTSD and that his symptoms are consistent with being a victim of trafficking, while a minor. I have attached considerable weight to Dr Heke’s expert opinion. I particularly note the absence of any challenge to the findings of Dr Heke on behalf of the respondent. Nonetheless, many of Dr Heke’s observations would equally apply to a trafficked young adult, which the applicant remains.
69. A further factor in the applicant’s favour is that the age assessment contained no criticism of the applicant’s physical appearance. This factor is entitled to only limited weight given the closeness in years of the applicant’s claimed age and the age the assessors found him to be.
70. As can be seen from the summary of the age assessment report set out above, the applicant provided several aliases and dates of birth for himself, differing names for his father and a less than full account of his siblings. The applicant’s written and oral evidence as to these matters was not particularly illuminating. Nonetheless, such inconsistencies need not be fatal to the applicant establishing his age given his mental state and his experiences of being trafficked. I have no hesitation in accepting that a traumatised victim of trafficking might be reluctant to provide accurate details or might have been instructed by traffickers to give a false account. I therefore consider the inconsistencies provided by the applicant in the round along with remainder of the evidence.
71. Serious issues arose from the Facebook evidence which I find have not been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant. None of the foregoing findings in any way seek to undermine the agreed facts, including that the applicant is a victim of trafficking.
72. One issue of concern is in relation to the applicant’s education in Vietnam. In his first witness statement, the applicant gave the following description of his education:
I started primary school from the age of four or five, however, I did not complete school and left in Grade 7. I remember it was around September 2019 when I left because the school year had just started not long before I was told by my father that I am going to Europe.
73. In the age assessment the applicant provided further detail, explaining that he attended school until lower secondary school level and that he left aged 13 years old. He also informed the assessors of the names of the three schools he attended in Vietnam.
74. The applicant’s Facebook profile shows that he attended a specific High School, which the respondent states, caters for students aged 15-18 years old. I have deliberately not named the High School. Those representing the applicant have not challenged the content of Ms Ahmed’s witness statement in this regard. I find that this evidence reveals that the applicant has been dishonest about his educational history and that it further undermines the applicant’s claim that he was aged 13 when he left Vietnam in 2019.
75. The applicant’s voluntarily posting of his attendance at upper secondary school tends to support the respondent’s account of his age, that is that he was 18 when he left Vietnam in 2019. It is also apparent from the Facebook profile that the applicant is an alumnus of the High School in question which further suggests that he has graduated and was more likely to be aged 18 at the time he left Vietnam.
76. The applicant has not engaged with this evidence. Instead in his third witness statement at [4] he states:
I cannot provide any explanation about my Facebook account prior to October 2023 as this was when I first had control of the account, and updated the account with my contact number on 15 January 2024. This account previously belonged to a person named (T), who I met briefly in a hotel after I returned to the UK from Scotland. I currently have no contact with (T) and do not know how to reach him.
77. The applicant’s claim that another person set up the applicant’s Facebook account is undermined by his earlier witness statements and his oral evidence at the hearing. In his first witness statement at [31], the applicant says, ‘I created a new Facebook profile…’ He also explains that he did so after being arrested at the cannabis house in 2021 and that he created the profile while he was a looked after child and that his communication with his older sister via Facebook led to him being forced to work at the second cannabis farm.
78. The applicant made a second witness statement which he signed on 9 May 2025 in which he made corrections to his earlier statement, provided an update and addressed his social media usage. There was no correction made in relation to the applicant having personally set up a Facebook account and the applicant did not say any more about Facebook when discussing social media.
79. When the applicant was cross-examined, he was asked when he began using Facebook and he repeated that this was after he was arrested by the police. When asked if the reason he claimed to have deleted the account was because it had messages which were contrary to his claimed age, the applicant replied, “I just created the Facebook account for entertainment.” Had the mysterious ‘T’ created this account, this would have been an opportunity for the applicant to say so. That he did not, undermines his very late claim that he was not responsible for the account or the posts. Given that there is not a single reference to the applicant’s Facebook account belonging to or being used by another person in either of the applicant’s earlier witness statements or his oral evidence and nor is there any explanation offered as to why this claim has been made so late in the proceedings, I find that this attempted explanation lacks all credibility and reject it.
80. A further matter raised by the respondent in paragraph 7 of Ms Ahmed’s witness statement calls into question how the applicant was spending his time in the United Kingdom after he went missing from his placement with the Interested Party in around May 2021. According to the applicant’s account in his first witness statement, shortly after contacting his family in April or May 2021, he was made to cultivate cannabis for a second period lasting around two years, until 2023. Indeed, it is a matter of record that the applicant presented himself at a police station in October 2023.
81. The applicant’s Facebook account shows activity between February 2022 to October 2022 which is inconsistent with his claim that he was forcibly and continuously cultivating cannabis between 2021 and 2023.
82. The Facebook data indicates that the applicant was searching for Nail Bar jobs within the UK between the dates of 3 February 2022 and 27 September 2022. The applicant became a member of various Facebook groups dealing in such work such as Nail Job Search, Nail - Classifieds – find a Job UK and Nail Technician Search. In addition, the applicant did not just join these groups but posted on several occasions during September and October 2022 giving details of his experience and the work he was looking for. In addition to the foregoing activity, the applicant’s contact telephone number was changed to his current number on 19 October 2021. This evidence contradicts the applicant’s claim that he was forced to cultivate cannabis on a second occasion or that if he was so forced that it was for a two-year period. There has been no engagement with this aspect of the Facebook data other than bare denials and a suggestion that the applicant was not in control of the account. For reasons given above, that claim is rejected.
83. The applicant informed the age assessors that he had had no contact with his family after around April 2021 as he had lost his telephone. That claim is undermined by the Facebook data showing him responding to his sister’s news in November 2021. Contrary to the applicant’s claim that he had no mobile telephone, is the Facebook data showing considerable activity between June 2021 and February 2026 in which the applicant used four different iPhones, changed the name of his Facebook profile more than once, updated his account and unfollowed Facebook friends.
84. The applicant also changed the entry regarding his date of birth on 15 October 2023, albeit I accept that details of the nature of that change are not apparent from the data. This issue does not, therefore, take the matter in dispute any further.
85. The Facebook data does not support the applicant’s account of being a vulnerable minor at the time he arrived in the United Kingdom nor that he was in the hands of traffickers for a two-year period commencing from around May 2021. The Facebook evidence paints the picture of a young adult High School graduate, who, according to the data lived in or travelled to many towns and cities in the United Kingdom including Salford, Lowton, Bolton, Nottingham, Birmingham, London and Newcastle, just in the period from January 2023 until October 2023 when he approached the police. Furthermore, that the applicant built a large social network of over 400 Facebook friends, persistently pursued employment and joined groups including one called ‘Ground’s for Asylum in the UK,’ demonstrates a level of confidence and independence incompatible with his claim to have left Vietnam aged 13 having had very limited life experience outside of his rural village.
86. In addition to the foregoing points, I have taken into consideration that the age assessment was not subject to any criticism on the applicant’s behalf. Furthermore, neither before nor after the disclosure of the Facebook data, has there been any apparent attempts to obtain the applicant’s birth certificate or school records from Vietnam. Lastly, there has been a level of evasiveness regarding the social media evidence and Ms Chan’s witness statement of 26 March 2025 is ambiguous. It is rather unfortunate that it is only at the hearing that there was any clarification of what the applicant meant in his witness statement when he referred to deleting his Facebook account.
~~~~0~~~~
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 BVT
Applicant
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent
ORDER
BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Kamara
HAVING considered all documents lodged and having heard Ms E Fitzsimons of counsel, instructed by Bhatia Best Solicitors, for the applicant and Mr T Tabori of counsel, instructed by GLD, for the respondent at a hearing on 16 February 2026.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. The applicant shall pay the respondent’s costs, to be assessed if not agreed.
3. The applicant having the benefit of cost protection under s 26 of LASPO 2012 and regulation 5 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013, these costs shall not be enforced without the permission of the court and the amount the applicant is to pay should be determined on an application by the respondent in accordance with s 26 LASPO.
4. There shall be detailed assessment of the applicant’s publicly funded costs.
Signed: T Kamara
Upper Tribunal Judge Kamara
Dated: 6 July 2026
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): 13/07/2026
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-2025-LON-000483
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR
6 July 2026
Before:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KAMARA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE KING
on the application of
BVT
Applicant
- and –
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
BARNSLEY METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
Interested Party
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ms E Fitzsimons
(instructed by Bhatia Best Solicitors), for the applicant
Mr T Tabori
(instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the respondent
Hearing date: 16 February 2026
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judge Kamara:
1. The applicant has been granted permission for a judicial review of the respondent’s decision dated 6 August 2024. That decision is the outcome of an age assessment by which the respondent assessed the applicant’s date of birth to be 23 March 2002, making him 23 years old as at the date of the hearing.
2. The applicant claims that his date of birth is 8 August 2006, making him 19 years old at the date of the hearing. The sole issue for resolution in these proceedings is the applicant’s age.
3. The factual background of this case is set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The applicant’s personal, immigration and age assessment history set out in that document is as follows:
i. The applicant is a Vietnamese national, who claims he was born on 8 August 2006, who claims to have arrived in the United Kingdom around October 2020. The applicant has previously presented four aliases.
ii. In April 2021, the applicant came to the attention of the UK authorities when he was encountered by South Yorkshire Police executing a drugs warrant at an address in Sheffield. The applicant provided an alias and claimed he was 14 years old. He later changed his stated age to 16 years old with a DOB of 25 March 2005. He was considered a minor; therefore, all criminal charges against him were dropped, and he was referred to the Interested Party’s (IP) Children Services. On 27 April 2021, the applicant became under the care of the IP and accommodated by them for the first time.
iii. On 6 May 2021, a referral was made by the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) to the Single Competent Authority (SCA). Subsequently, on 10 May 2021, a positive Reasonable Grounds (RG) decision was made by the SCA.
iv. The applicant was accommodated by the IP for around a month before he went missing and became a missing young person until his case was closed by the IP in March 2023, when he would have turned 18 according to the DOB of 23 March 2005.
v. On 12 October 2023, the applicant became known to UK authorities again and claimed asylum on the same day. This was also when the applicant came forward with his claimed ‘actual’ name and DOB of 8 August 2006. He was referred to Newcastle Children Services and a second referral was made by the NRM to SCA.
vi. On 23 November 2023, a negative RG decision was made by the SCA.
vii. On 12 December 2023, the applicant was passed back into the care of the IP and was treated as a child in their care. On 25 May 2024, the IP made a referral to the National Age Assessment Board (NAAB) upon the respondent’s refusal to accept the applicant’s stated age due to the differing names and dates of birth the applicant has previously presented. The IP is in agreement that an age assessment is required for the same reasons, but the Applicant remained treated as a child. The NAAB age assessment commenced on 7 June 2024, followed by assessment sessions on 11 June 2024, 13 June 2024, 19 June 2024 and a minded to meeting on 26 June 2024.
viii. The applicant has stated that he was trafficked as a child into the UK from Vietnam and forced to cultivate cannabis in order to pay for his father’s gambling debt. He stated that he was never paid for his work, but was told that his work will contribute towards his father’s debt. The applicant has also stated that he was re-trafficked to a different cannabis farm in Scotland when he went missing in 2021, and escaped in 2023 due to him being subjected to regular abuse by his captors.
ix. The assessment outcome meeting was on 6 August 2024, and the respondent concluded that the applicant is 22 years old with a DOB of 23 March 2002. On the same day, the applicant was moved from his placement address to an adult NASS hotel accommodation.
x. Further on 13 February 2025, the SCA reached a Conclusive Grounds decision and found that the applicant was a victim of modern slavery, in particular for Child Criminal Exploitation.
xi. On 3 March 2025, the IP agreed to provide the applicant with leaving care provisions pending the outcome of the final contested hearing. As of 5 June 2025, the applicant continues to be residing in asylum support accommodation in the absence of suitable Children Act Support despite the IP having agreed to provide appropriate support to him being a ‘former’ child.
The Finding of Fact hearing
4. On 16 February 2026, the applicant gave evidence with the assistance of a Vietnamese speaking interpreter. A psychological report from Dr Sarah Heke, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, dated 9 September 2025 was before the Upper Tribunal. Dr Heke diagnosed the applicant with severe Complex PTSD with comorbid severe Major Depressive Disorder and stated that the applicant’s “ability to recall and/or recount past events during an age assessment session and/or a Home Office interview and a Tribunal hearing is significantly impaired due to the severity of his mental health problems and his vulnerability as a victim of trafficking.” She recommends that he be treated as a vulnerable witness and that the following measures, outlined in the Joint Presidential Guidance Note No. 2 of 2010: Child, Vulnerable Adult and Sensitive Appellant at §10.2, are applied:
10.2 During the hearing
i. Speak clearly and directly to the appellant/witness. Demonstrate active
listening.
ii. Use plain English and avoid legal and other jargon; be sensitive to specific communication needs for reasons of language or disability.
iii. Ensure questions asked are open ended wherever possible; broken down to avoid having more than one idea or point in each question and avoid suggesting a particular answer.
iv. Curtail improper or aggressive cross examination; control the manner of questioning to avoid harassment, intimidation or humiliation. Ensure that questions are asked in an appropriate manner using a tone and vocabulary appropriate to the appellant’s age, maturity, level of understanding and personal circumstances and attributes. Pay special attention to avoid re-traumatisation of a victim of crime, torture, sexual violence.
v. Be sensitive to the possibility that the witness/appellant has understood the question, and, if there is a risk of confusion, check this.
vi. Ensure that adequate breaks are given during the hearing; check at intervals throughout the hearing that the appellant is comfortable and understands the proceedings; don’t wait to be asked.
5. Mr Tabori did his best to question the applicant in line with the adjustments identified in the said report. The applicant was also provided with a number of breaks throughout his evidence.
6. Ms Vicki Kerr also gave evidence on the applicant’s behalf, remotely.
7. Thereafter, both representatives provided detailed submissions, relying on their respective skeleton arguments.
8. An issue arose towards the end of the applicant’s evidence regarding his Facebook account. He clarified that he had not deleted his account but merely deleted the Facebook application on his telephone when he began using TikTok.
9. In the hearing bundle, there was a statement from a then trainee solicitor, Ms Chan, who stated as follows:
I certify that on 12 March 2025 and 17 March 2025 I conducted a proportionate search of the Applicant’s social media accounts, in accordance with paragraph 4(b) of the Directions Order sealed on 26 February 2025 of Upper Tribunal Lawyer, Asim Hussain. I confirm that all material disclosure has been provided to all parties on 26 March 2025.
10. The only disclosure of social media use made on behalf of the applicant was a single page in the joint bundle, which provided his TikTok username and associated details. That page also mentioned a Facebook account as a third-party connection. The data shown on that single page was difficult to decipher. Ms Fitzsimons submitted that this disclosure was sufficient in view of the applicant’s evidence that he did not post on TikTok but only used it to view videos.
11. Owing to the clarification of the status of the applicant’s Facebook profile, Ms Fitzsimons undertook to obtain a further witness statement by 20 February 2026. She was unable to clarify matters at the hearing because the solicitor with conduct of the case was on a sabbatical abroad, albeit with access to emails. I agreed to await this evidence, as well as any reply from the respondent made within 48 hours of receipt of any further evidence before deciding this matter.
12. Bhatia Best solicitors wrote to the Upper Tribunal on 20 February 2026, copied to the respondent the same day. Several points were made in that letter, but the most important was that the applicant’s Facebook account may now have been found. It was explained that there had been difficulties with re-setting the account password which meant that the solicitor would need to meet the applicant in person. Further time was sought for this to be achieved. The Upper Tribunal acknowledged receipt of this letter and allowed until 4 pm on 2 March 2026 for the additional statement and any accompanying material to be provided and a further 48 hours for the respondent’s reply.
13. A further statement was provided by Mr Bhatia dated 2 March 2026 in which he apologised for the earlier failure to identify and disclose the applicant’s Facebook account. Mr Bhatia further explained that he had gained access to the applicant’s Facebook account and referred to having served the account data on the Tribunal and the respondent. Mr Bhatia stated that he had conducted a proportionate search for an Instagram or Snapchat social media accounts belonging to the applicant and was unable to identify any. A link to a shared file containing the applicant’s Facebook data was provided. The shared file contained a considerable quantity of data contained in ten folders, some of which contained subfolders with further information.
14. In terms of commentary on the Facebook data, the only observation made by Mr Bhatia was that the account reflected the applicant’s claimed date of birth.
15. Owing to the amount of data, the respondent was granted additional time to review it and to compile a response. This, the respondent did by way of an 8-page witness statement from Ms A Ahmed, the Devolved Government Lead and Social Worker Team Manager in the National Age Assessment Board of the Home Office, dated 6 March 2026. That statement contained an assessment of the Facebook data and was accompanied by 250 pages of exhibits.
16. A response to Ms Ahmed’s witness statement was filed on 13 March 2026, by way of an email from Mr Bhatia, which stated as follows.
Further to the below email from the GLD and in light of the witness statement of Amna Ahmed relating to the Applicant’s Facebook account, it has come to my attention that paragraph 11 of the statement could be interpreted misleadingly and contrary to the evidence. I hope the below clarifies matters and I would be grateful if this email could be placed before Judge Kamara.
The Respondent’s witness states at paragraph 11, ‘The date of birth listed on his Facebook account is 08 August 2006, which corresponds with the date he claimed. However, there was a change made to this birthdate entry on 15 October 2023’. The Respondent’s witness statement goes on to suggest that the Applicant changed his date of birth on his Facebook account following an interview with the Home Office on 12 October 2023 to correspond with his account given at the time.
The ‘Profile update history’ section of the Facebook data shows that the date of birth on this account has been listed as ‘August 8, 2006’ since 28 August 2021 (i.e. since the date his Facebook profile was first created). Please see below a screenshot evidencing the same.
17. No issue was taken by Mr Bhatia to any other aspect of Ms Ahmed’s statement.
18. In the absence of any further communications from the parties, on 7 April 2026, the Tribunal ordered further and final submissions.
19. Succinct written submissions were provided by the respondent which addressed the applicant’s concern regarding the date of birth on the Facebook account.
20. On behalf of the applicant, the Tribunal received a 96-page bundle consisting of a further witness statement from the applicant dated 21 April 2026, a further statement from Ms Chan (who is now qualified as a solicitor) dated 21 April 2026 and further evidence of social media activity, most of which is in Vietnamese and with no translations provided. In addition, there were short written submissions from Ms Fitzsimons.
21. In Ms Chan’s second witness statement she explains the steps she took to look for the applicant’s social media accounts. She acknowledges that these steps did not include searching Facebook’s ‘Forgotten Password link,’ which Mr Bhatia had done. Otherwise, Ms Chan took issue with the conclusion reached by Ms Ahmed on the Facebook material in relation to the amount of contact between the appellant and his family
Evidence summary
22. In reaching this decision I have had the benefit of the totality of the evidence upon which the parties seek to rely, including the witness statements and the oral evidence of the applicant and supporting witnesses.
23. I have also considered the social care records disclosed by the Interested Party as well as the age assessment itself and the underlying documents. For the avoidance of any doubt, I have addressed the question as to the applicant’s age and date of birth, without any predisposition that the applicant is or is not a child.
24. In reaching my determination on the applicant’s date of birth and age I have assessed all the evidence in the round in determining what, if any weight to attach to that evidence.
The applicant’s case
25. In his witness statement dated 5 November 2024 at paragraphs 5-6, the applicant explains how he knows that he was born on 8 August 2006, in the Lunar year of the dog. There he explains that he learnt his date of birth while at school in Vietnam and that when he commenced secondary school, he had a student card which had his birth date on it. He states that he believes that he has a birth certificate but that he has never seen it. He does not wish to speak to his family because he fears that his father will force him to work, as he had after being arrested in 2021. The applicant does not have any document which supports his account of his age.
26. A second witness statement dated 9 May 2025 provides an update to the earlier statement and addresses various issues. What the applicant had to say about his social media use is reproduced here.
I opened a TikTok account when I was 17 years old with a Vietnamese username which means ‘I am not a handsome boy’ in English. My date of birth recorded on there is 8 August 1988 because TikTok would not allow me to create an account using my date of birth at the time, so I selected a year at random that made me older than 18. I learnt about this application from a friend in the UK and wanted to speak with him on there. He told me that TikTok only allowed users 18 or over to use the chat function. I have not posted videos of myself on TikTok and only use it to watch short videos as a form of entertainment.
27. The applicant has given a detailed account of distressing circumstances prior to his arrival the United Kingdom as well as traumatic events which occurred after his arrival. He has been recognised as a refugee as well as a victim of trafficking based on this account. As there is no dispute in relation to these facts which are helpfully summarised in Ms Fitzsimons’ skeleton argument at [10-24] I will not refer to them save where necessary.
28. The third witness statement which was produced after the hearing had concluded was made in response to the witness statement of Ms Ahmed. In short, the applicant stated that he was not in control of his Facebook account prior to October 2023 as it belonged to a person he had briefly met in a hotel and whom he could no longer contact. The applicant states that he updated the account with his contact number on 15 January 2024. The applicant denied being responsible for the Facebook activity from 2022 and 2023, explained that the photographs of him at a wedding were taken in the UK in 2024 when he was already an adult and that a further photo of him was also taken in the UK. Otherwise, the applicant maintained the account of his circumstances which he had provided in his earlier witness statements.
29. Ms Fitzsimons’ further submissions emphasised that the applicant should not be held responsible for his solicitor’s failings and that the Facebook evidence was of little probative value. Otherwise, the submissions reiterate points made by the applicant in his third witness statement and by Ms Chan in her third witness statement. Ms Fitzsimons submitted that greater weight ought to be placed on the appellant’s oral evidence and presentation at the hearing as well as the other evidence before the Tribunal which supported his account as to his claimed age.
The respondent’s case
30. The respondent relies upon the outcome of the age assessment, which was carried out between 11-26 June 2024, with the decision notified on 6 August 2024. The analysis in that report can be summarised as follows.
31. Based on his appearance, behaviour, education, and the ‘job‑interview’ evidence, the assessors believed that the applicant was probably born in 2002, making him 18 years old or more when leaving Vietnam and thus already an adult upon arrival in the UK. The assessors adopted the date of birth the applicant gave the police in March 2021, as it was recalled quickly and confidently, considered more plausible and thought likely to reflect his true day and month of birth. The specific concerns raised by the assessors are considered later in this judgment, alongside the applicant’s oral evidence.
32. Sabia Imran, an Age Assessment Social Worker employed by the Home Office’s National Age Assessment Board (NAAB), provided a statement on the respondent’s behalf, but was not called as a witness.
33. The second assessing social worker has since left the NAAB’s employ. Ms Imran’s statement reiterated the reasons given in the Age Assessment decision for concluding the applicant was an adult.
34. The post- hearing witness statement of Ms Ahmed identified what were described as ‘anomalies’ in the appellant’s account which went to his age. They include, but are not limited to, details of his education, his contact with his family and aspects relating to his account of being trafficked.
The legal framework
35. The role of the Upper Tribunal is to determine, on the balance of probabilities, the applicant’s age and date of birth.
36. The age assessment for the applicant was carried out under the provisions of Part 4 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Section 50 of the Act provides that a local authority may refer an age-disputed young person to a ‘designated person’ for an age assessment. A designated person is an official of the Secretary of State who is designated to conduct age assessments under sections 50 or 51. Section 51 of the Act provides that an age assessment carried out by a designated person is binding on the Secretary of State and immigration officers when exercising immigration functions.
37. The Secretary of State is permitted to make regulations under section 53 of the 2022 Act about the processes to be used in age assessments, at the time of the hearing there was no statutorily prescribed procedure. The age assessment in this case therefore remains subject to the principles and guidance developed in the existing body of caselaw.
38. Where the age assessment of the local authority is in dispute, it is for the Tribunal or Court to reach its own assessment of age as a matter of fact.
39. It was recognised by Lady Hale in R (A) -v- Croydon LBC [2009] UKSC 8, that this was not a task without difficulty:
But the question whether a person is a “child” is a different kind of question. There is a right or a wrong answer. It may be difficult to determine what that answer is. The decision-makers may have to do their best on the basis of less than perfect or conclusive evidence. But that is true of many questions of fact which regularly come before the courts. That does not prevent them from being questions for the courts rather than for other kinds of decision-makers.
40. In R (B) -v- Merton LBC [2003] EHHC 1689, the following guidance was given by Stanley Burnton J, as to the correct approach to that task:
“the assessment of age in borderline cases is a difficult matter, but it is not complex. It is not an issue which requires anything approaching a trial, and judicialisation of the process is in my judgement to be avoided. It is a matter which may be determined informally, provided safeguards of minimum standards of enquiry and of fairness are adhered to.”
“I do not think it is helpful to apply concepts of onus of proof to the assessment of age by local authorities. Unlike cases under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, there is in the present context no legislative provision placing an onus of proof on the applicant. The local authority must make its assessment on the material available to and obtained by it. This should be no predisposition, divorced from the information and evidence available to the local authority, to assume that an applicant is an adult, or conversely that he is a child…”
41. In determining the applicant’s age, the Tribunal is not confined to choose between the positions of the parties; R (W) v London Borough of Croydon [2012] EWHC 1130 [3].
42. The nature of the Tribunal’s inquiry under the Children Act 1989 is inquisitorial, R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590 [§ 21]. As for how it goes about this inquiry, the Tribunal must decide the applicant’s age on the balance of probability.
43. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the focus of this case is on the credibility of the applicant’s account of his age. In MVN v LB Greenwich [2015] EWHC Civ 1942 (Admin), [27] it is said that the primary focus must be ‘on the credibility of the person's evidence concerning his or her age’ and that this requires ‘particular importance’ to be given to their evidence concerning their age, above credibility more generally.
Analysis
Age assessment report
44. The age assessment runs to around 50 pages and is a detailed and thorough piece of work. The age assessment refers to inconsistencies in the applicant’s accounts which were considered to damage his credibility. Those inconsistencies include the use of multiple aliases and dates of birth which were not satisfactorily explained. It was also felt that he had given conflicting accounts of several aspects of his journey to various professionals which led the assessors to find that he was not credible. In relation to his relatives, the assessors considered that the applicant had provided three different names for his father, given an inconsistent account as to his siblings and had offered no reasonable explanation.
45. The assessment concluded that the applicant’s claimed age was not plausible based on the reference in a medical report to the applicant attending a job interview in Vietnam when according to his account he would have been aged 13. The assessors considered that the applicant’s account of starting school at age 5 was inconsistent with Vietnamese education norms and that his claim to have been “halfway through” Grade 7 in September 2019 was inconsistent with the Vietnamese school year. It was also thought that his intellect and English‑learning ability suggested more advanced education and maturity than claimed.
46. As for the applicant’s physical appearance and maturity, the assessors felt that his physical development appeared fully complete, inconsistent with being him being 17 at the time of the assessment. A comparison was made of the applicant’s height, weight and body type and the assessors stated that these features were average or normal for his claimed age, but that physical presentation was an unreliable by itself. The assessors felt that the applicant’s demeanour was more adult‑like than child‑like.
47. In considering behaviour and motivation, the assessors considered whether the applicant’s changing identity may have been used to avoid criminal consequences (e.g., cannabis cultivation arrests) and gain access children’s services support by claiming to be under 18. It was noted the applicant had only admitted his “true” details after the fingerprint match.
48. The assessors rejected the possibility that the scale and nature of the inconsistencies could be explained solely by trauma‑related memory issues. The reasons for assigning the date of birth of 23 March 2002 was that this was the date of birth the applicant gave the police in March 2021. The assessors considered that the applicant recalled that date of birth quickly and confidently and that this was likely to reflect his true day and month of birth.
49. Sabia Imran, one of the assessing social workers has provided a witness statement dated 9 May 2025. In that statement sets out her experience she confirms that the assessment was conducted over several sessions in June 2024, with an Appropriate Adult and an interpreter present throughout and, otherwise, summarises the conclusions reached, as set out in the report itself.
50. The age assessment was particularly careful and thorough. Indeed, there has been no challenge to any aspect of the age assessment process or report. I place considerable weight on this evidence.
The medical evidence
51. The totality of the medical evidence has been considered. That evidence mainly consists of a psychological report on the applicant, which is dated 9 September 2025 prepared by Sarah Heke, a Consultant Clinical Psychologist with 31 years of clinical experience, including 16 years at consultant level specialising in trauma. Her report is based on clinical interview, behavioural observations, review of records, and relevant documentary material. There was no challenge to the content of her report on behalf of the respondent. I find that she expresses her conclusions to the Tribunal within her expertise and I place significant weight upon them.
52. Dr Heke concludes that the applicant presents with severe Complex Post‑traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) and severe Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). In her opinion, he meets the full diagnostic criteria for both conditions. The CPTSD is manifested in emotional dysregulation, persistent difficulties with trust and relationships, a markedly diminished sense of self, and entrenched feelings of worthlessness and defeat. The MDD symptoms include persistent low mood, anhedonia, insomnia, fatigue, impaired concentration, and recurrent suicidal ideation. She also notes features of prolonged grief arising from the applicant’s separation from his mother and sisters.
53. The expert considers these conditions to be directly attributable to the applicant’s reported history of trafficking and prolonged abuse. According to the account he gave, he was trafficked from the age of 13 through multiple countries before being brought to the UK in conditions involving exploitation, violence, and coercion. He was also re‑trafficked within the UK. Dr Heke finds his presentation to be clinically consistent with victims of trafficking, including Vietnamese minors subject to similar exploitation patterns. She does not consider that he is exaggerating or fabricating symptoms; in her view, his avoidance, emotional responses, and difficulties disclosing traumatic material are characteristic of severe trauma rather than deliberate withholding.
54. The expert explains that the appellant’s PTSD, depressive symptoms, and hyperarousal significantly impair his ability to give a full, detailed, and chronological account of past events. Trauma of this nature affects memory retrieval, concentration, and narrative coherence. Dr Heke refers to recognised research indicating that inconsistencies in accounts are common among trauma survivors and should not be treated as indicative of dishonesty. She also notes that cultural factors may contribute to over‑generalised recall. Shame, distress, and avoidance further inhibit disclosure, and these were all evident during her assessment.
55. Dr Heke considers the applicant to be highly vulnerable to re‑trafficking both in the UK and in Vietnam because he lacks the psychological resilience and personal resources necessary to protect himself from coercion or exploitation.
56. In relation to participation in legal proceedings, Dr Heke states that the applicant has the mental capacity to give evidence, participate in interviews, and instruct his representatives. However, his ability to provide a coherent and detailed account is likely to be compromised under stress, especially where he feels disbelieved. Distress may impair recall and narration.
57. Finally, Dr Heke indicates that the applicant requires trauma‑focused psychological treatment, including a stabilisation phase followed by EMDR or Narrative Exposure Therapy. She considers his prognosis to be positive if treatment is provided within a stable environment, but poor in circumstances of continuing instability or the absence of appropriate therapeutic intervention.
Witness statements in support of the applicant
58. A witness, Jessica Kelly, provided a witness statement in support of the applicant’s claimed age. Ms Kelly was, ultimately, unable to attend the hearing. Ms Kelly has been employed by the Refugee Council since 2022, currently working as a Casework Advisor within Youth Services. She has extensive professional experience supporting unaccompanied asylum‑seeking children, including those undergoing age assessments and has also worked in Vietnam in key‑worker roles. She has regularly acted as an appropriate adult in age assessments and has supported numerous age‑disputed children.
59. Ms Kelly supported the applicant between August and October 2024 following his placement in adult accommodation after being assessed as an adult. She describes significant distress experienced by the Applicant while placed in a hotel with an adult, including an episode in which he was mistakenly evicted due to confusion around his identity. Ms Kelly states that throughout her contact with the applicant, his presentation was consistent with his stated age, including his reliance on adult guidance, emotional vulnerability, and peer relationships with others aged 17–18. She reports that his physical appearance, behaviour, and interactions align with those of someone of his claimed age, and that she has had no reason to doubt his stated date of birth. I find that there is no reason to doubt Ms Kelly’s evidence but taking into consideration that she was unavailable for cross-examination, I slightly reduce the degree of weight I have placed upon her evidence.
60. A second witness, Lathangie Baskaran has also provided a statement in support of his claimed age and was also unable to attend the hearing. Ms Baskaran is a Casework Advisor in the Refugee Council’s My View team and describes their involvement with the applicant in early 2024. Concerns are outlined regarding his placement in adult Section 95 accommodation, his susceptibility to influence, and clear indicators of potential re‑exploitation, including the applicant considering accepting offers of free accommodation and money from adults he scarcely knew. The applicant’s weekly remote sessions were focused on safeguarding him, discouraging risky decisions, and addressing practical matters. Ms Baskaran notes that the applicant struggled with social skills, relied heavily on adults from his own community, and formed attachments easily. His situation improved after relocation to dispersal accommodation and receipt of a positive NRM decision, after which responsibility for his support was transferred to a specialist provider. I have placed a moderate amount of weight on this report, taking into consideration that the witness was not cross-examined.
Social media evidence
61. On 26 March 2025, Mei Kei Chan, then a trainee-solicitor with Bhatia Best Solicitors provided a witness statement addressing the social media evidence directions made by the Tribunal. She stated as follows:
I certify that on 12 March 2025 and 17 March 2025 I conducted a proportionate search of the Applicant’s social media accounts, in accordance with paragraph 4(b) of the Directions Order sealed on 26 February 2025 of Upper Tribunal Lawyer, Asim Hussain. I confirm that all material disclosure has been provided to all parties on 26 March 2025.
62. That disclosure consisted of a single page of data which referred to a TikTok account linked to the applicant and a ‘Third Party Connection’ to Facebook.
Oral evidence
63. The Tribunal heard evidence from Vicki Kerr who provided a witness statement dated 8 May 2025.
64. Ms Kerr is a Team Manager at Future19 with seven years’ experience supporting people in OFSTED‑registered accommodation for 16–18‑year‑olds. In the witness statement, she explains that the applicant resided at the home between March and August 2024 until he was ‘aged out’ following his age assessment. She states that staff supported him in developing essential life skills, including budgeting, cooking and attending appointments, and that he presented initially as emotionally fragile, introverted and traumatised, requiring several months to build trust. During his stay he progressed socially and linguistically, aided by a close friendship with another 17‑year‑old Vietnamese resident. Ms Kerr remarks that the applicant integrated well with peers, formed positive relationships within the home, and displayed no signs of being significantly older than other residents, giving her no concerns regarding his age during his placement.
65. Ms Kerr’s oral evidence was entirely consistent with her witness statement. Given that, the absence of any criticism of her evidence on behalf of the respondent, as well as her experience working with the 16-18 age group, I am satisfied that Ms Kerr’s opinion as to the applicant’s age is deserving of a substantial degree of weight.
Applicant’s oral evidence
66. In examination in chief, the applicant relied upon his two witness statements dated 5 November 2024 and 9 May 2024. Thereafter he was tendered for cross-examination during which he was questioned regarding several themes. Those themes included the applicant’s contact with his family in Vietnam, the varying names and dates of birth the applicant had provided for himself as well as for his father, the applicant’s alleged evasiveness when giving his account to the SCA, his health assessment, that he had a large tattoo inked on his chest, a job interview in Vietnam, social media activity and his accommodation in the United Kingdom. I will not set out the details of the applicant’s oral evidence here as, where relevant, this will be addressed in my overall conclusions. I will add that at times, I observed the applicant in tears during his oral evidence and note that several breaks were taken for this reason.
Overall conclusions
67. I conclude, for the reasons set out below, that the applicant is not the age he claims to be and that it is more likely than not that his date of birth is 23 March 2002, making him a young adult, aged eighteen, at the time he arrived in the United Kingdom during October 2020 and twenty-three at the time of the hearing.
68. In reaching my conclusion as to the applicant’s age I have taken into consideration the evidence which goes to support his account. That evidence includes Dr Heke’s report, summarised above, which identifies that the applicant suffers from complex PTSD and that his symptoms are consistent with being a victim of trafficking, while a minor. I have attached considerable weight to Dr Heke’s expert opinion. I particularly note the absence of any challenge to the findings of Dr Heke on behalf of the respondent. Nonetheless, many of Dr Heke’s observations would equally apply to a trafficked young adult, which the applicant remains.
69. A further factor in the applicant’s favour is that the age assessment contained no criticism of the applicant’s physical appearance. This factor is entitled to only limited weight given the closeness in years of the applicant’s claimed age and the age the assessors found him to be.
70. As can be seen from the summary of the age assessment report set out above, the applicant provided several aliases and dates of birth for himself, differing names for his father and a less than full account of his siblings. The applicant’s written and oral evidence as to these matters was not particularly illuminating. Nonetheless, such inconsistencies need not be fatal to the applicant establishing his age given his mental state and his experiences of being trafficked. I have no hesitation in accepting that a traumatised victim of trafficking might be reluctant to provide accurate details or might have been instructed by traffickers to give a false account. I therefore consider the inconsistencies provided by the applicant in the round along with remainder of the evidence.
71. Serious issues arose from the Facebook evidence which I find have not been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant. None of the foregoing findings in any way seek to undermine the agreed facts, including that the applicant is a victim of trafficking.
72. One issue of concern is in relation to the applicant’s education in Vietnam. In his first witness statement, the applicant gave the following description of his education:
I started primary school from the age of four or five, however, I did not complete school and left in Grade 7. I remember it was around September 2019 when I left because the school year had just started not long before I was told by my father that I am going to Europe.
73. In the age assessment the applicant provided further detail, explaining that he attended school until lower secondary school level and that he left aged 13 years old. He also informed the assessors of the names of the three schools he attended in Vietnam.
74. The applicant’s Facebook profile shows that he attended a specific High School, which the respondent states, caters for students aged 15-18 years old. I have deliberately not named the High School. Those representing the applicant have not challenged the content of Ms Ahmed’s witness statement in this regard. I find that this evidence reveals that the applicant has been dishonest about his educational history and that it further undermines the applicant’s claim that he was aged 13 when he left Vietnam in 2019.
75. The applicant’s voluntarily posting of his attendance at upper secondary school tends to support the respondent’s account of his age, that is that he was 18 when he left Vietnam in 2019. It is also apparent from the Facebook profile that the applicant is an alumnus of the High School in question which further suggests that he has graduated and was more likely to be aged 18 at the time he left Vietnam.
76. The applicant has not engaged with this evidence. Instead in his third witness statement at [4] he states:
I cannot provide any explanation about my Facebook account prior to October 2023 as this was when I first had control of the account, and updated the account with my contact number on 15 January 2024. This account previously belonged to a person named (T), who I met briefly in a hotel after I returned to the UK from Scotland. I currently have no contact with (T) and do not know how to reach him.
77. The applicant’s claim that another person set up the applicant’s Facebook account is undermined by his earlier witness statements and his oral evidence at the hearing. In his first witness statement at [31], the applicant says, ‘I created a new Facebook profile…’ He also explains that he did so after being arrested at the cannabis house in 2021 and that he created the profile while he was a looked after child and that his communication with his older sister via Facebook led to him being forced to work at the second cannabis farm.
78. The applicant made a second witness statement which he signed on 9 May 2025 in which he made corrections to his earlier statement, provided an update and addressed his social media usage. There was no correction made in relation to the applicant having personally set up a Facebook account and the applicant did not say any more about Facebook when discussing social media.
79. When the applicant was cross-examined, he was asked when he began using Facebook and he repeated that this was after he was arrested by the police. When asked if the reason he claimed to have deleted the account was because it had messages which were contrary to his claimed age, the applicant replied, “I just created the Facebook account for entertainment.” Had the mysterious ‘T’ created this account, this would have been an opportunity for the applicant to say so. That he did not, undermines his very late claim that he was not responsible for the account or the posts. Given that there is not a single reference to the applicant’s Facebook account belonging to or being used by another person in either of the applicant’s earlier witness statements or his oral evidence and nor is there any explanation offered as to why this claim has been made so late in the proceedings, I find that this attempted explanation lacks all credibility and reject it.
80. A further matter raised by the respondent in paragraph 7 of Ms Ahmed’s witness statement calls into question how the applicant was spending his time in the United Kingdom after he went missing from his placement with the Interested Party in around May 2021. According to the applicant’s account in his first witness statement, shortly after contacting his family in April or May 2021, he was made to cultivate cannabis for a second period lasting around two years, until 2023. Indeed, it is a matter of record that the applicant presented himself at a police station in October 2023.
81. The applicant’s Facebook account shows activity between February 2022 to October 2022 which is inconsistent with his claim that he was forcibly and continuously cultivating cannabis between 2021 and 2023.
82. The Facebook data indicates that the applicant was searching for Nail Bar jobs within the UK between the dates of 3 February 2022 and 27 September 2022. The applicant became a member of various Facebook groups dealing in such work such as Nail Job Search, Nail - Classifieds – find a Job UK and Nail Technician Search. In addition, the applicant did not just join these groups but posted on several occasions during September and October 2022 giving details of his experience and the work he was looking for. In addition to the foregoing activity, the applicant’s contact telephone number was changed to his current number on 19 October 2021. This evidence contradicts the applicant’s claim that he was forced to cultivate cannabis on a second occasion or that if he was so forced that it was for a two-year period. There has been no engagement with this aspect of the Facebook data other than bare denials and a suggestion that the applicant was not in control of the account. For reasons given above, that claim is rejected.
83. The applicant informed the age assessors that he had had no contact with his family after around April 2021 as he had lost his telephone. That claim is undermined by the Facebook data showing him responding to his sister’s news in November 2021. Contrary to the applicant’s claim that he had no mobile telephone, is the Facebook data showing considerable activity between June 2021 and February 2026 in which the applicant used four different iPhones, changed the name of his Facebook profile more than once, updated his account and unfollowed Facebook friends.
84. The applicant also changed the entry regarding his date of birth on 15 October 2023, albeit I accept that details of the nature of that change are not apparent from the data. This issue does not, therefore, take the matter in dispute any further.
85. The Facebook data does not support the applicant’s account of being a vulnerable minor at the time he arrived in the United Kingdom nor that he was in the hands of traffickers for a two-year period commencing from around May 2021. The Facebook evidence paints the picture of a young adult High School graduate, who, according to the data lived in or travelled to many towns and cities in the United Kingdom including Salford, Lowton, Bolton, Nottingham, Birmingham, London and Newcastle, just in the period from January 2023 until October 2023 when he approached the police. Furthermore, that the applicant built a large social network of over 400 Facebook friends, persistently pursued employment and joined groups including one called ‘Ground’s for Asylum in the UK,’ demonstrates a level of confidence and independence incompatible with his claim to have left Vietnam aged 13 having had very limited life experience outside of his rural village.
86. In addition to the foregoing points, I have taken into consideration that the age assessment was not subject to any criticism on the applicant’s behalf. Furthermore, neither before nor after the disclosure of the Facebook data, has there been any apparent attempts to obtain the applicant’s birth certificate or school records from Vietnam. Lastly, there has been a level of evasiveness regarding the social media evidence and Ms Chan’s witness statement of 26 March 2025 is ambiguous. It is rather unfortunate that it is only at the hearing that there was any clarification of what the applicant meant in his witness statement when he referred to deleting his Facebook account.
~~~~0~~~~