JR-2025-LON-002277

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 04 Mar 2026
• Promulgation date: 19 Mar 2026
• Publication date: 31 Mar 2026
• Last updated on: 31 Mar 2026

The decision

JR-2025-LON-002277
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
BNE
Applicant
v

West Northamptonshire County Council
Respondent

ORDER

BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Grey

HAVING considered all documents lodged and having heard Mr D. Bazini of counsel, instructed by Luke & Bridger Law, for the Applicant and Mr J. Auburn KC of counsel, instructed by West Northamptonshire County Council, for the Respondent at a hearing held at Field House on 3 and 4 March 2026, and having received further written submissions from the parties on 18 March 2026 in relation to disclosure to the Secretary of State for the Home Department

IT IS DECLARED THAT the Applicant’s date of birth is 26 May 2002

CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS DECLARED:

(i) The Applicant was aged 22 at the date of the Respondent’s assessment conducted on 23 April 2025

(ii) The Applicant was aged 23 at the date of the hearing in the Upper Tribunal on 3 and 4 March 2026

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. The Applicant shall pay the Respondent’s costs of the judicial review proceedings, with the sums payable to be determined upon any application under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.

3. There is to be detailed assessment of the Applicant’s publicly funded costs.

4. The Respondent has permission to disclose the Judgment and the hearing bundle to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and permission to inform the Secretary of State of the name and any reference details of the Applicant so that the Secretary of State can know to which individual the Judgment relates.


S Grey
Upper Tribunal Judge
Immigration and Asylum Chamber 19 March 2026



The date on which this order was sent is given below

19 March 2026

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):

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-002277
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR

19 March 2026
Before:

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GREY

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

Between:
THE KING
on the application of
BNE
Applicant
- and -

WEST NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr D. Bazini
(instructed by Luke & Bridger Law), for the applicant

Mr J. Auburn KC
(instructed by Pathfinder Legal Services Ltd1), for the respondent

Hearing date: 3 and 4 March 2026

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

J U D G M E N T

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



Judge Grey:
Anonymity
1. The applicant’s application for anonymity was granted by the High Court upon permission being granted to him to bring these proceedings. I maintain that order on account of the fact the applicant has claimed asylum and that claim is yet to be determined.
Introduction
2. The purpose of these proceedings is to establish the applicant’s probable age and date of birth based on the evidence before me. Although the applicant has claimed asylum in the United Kingdom, I am not required to and do not make any findings on his asylum claim. That is a matter for the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the first instance.
3. The applicant arrived in the United Kingdom on 5 March 2025 and presented himself to the authorities as an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child. Initially in these proceedings he claimed to have been born on 21 February 2008. This changed during the course of the hearing to 22 March 2008 on the basis that an error had been made converting the applicant’s date of birth from the Ethiopian (Ge’ez) calendar into the Gregorian calendar. The applicant’s claimed date of birth is disputed by the respondent council. The respondent conducted a Brief Enquiry Form assessment (“BEF”) in relation to the applicant’s age on 23 April 2025. The BEF concluded that the applicant was significantly over the age of 18 and was clearly an adult.
4. The BEF did not identify an age or date of birth for the applicant. However, an Assessing Officer’s Report conducted on behalf of the Home Office on 5 March 2025 assigned the applicant with a date of birth of 21 February 2001, which would have made him 24 years old at the date of arrival in the UK.
The application for judicial review
5. On 6 May 2025 the applicant’s solicitors served on the respondent a Letter Before Action pursuant to the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review (“PAP”), challenging the respondent’s age decision of 23 April 2025, and the failure of the respondent to afford the applicant with support and services under the Children Act 1989.
6. In a PAP letter of reply dated 20 May 2025 (HB/429), the respondent maintained its position and asserted that the decision was lawful and complied with caselaw including R (HAM) v London Borough of Brent [2022] EWHC 1924 (Admin).
7. The applicant initiated these proceedings on 5 June 2025 in the Administrative Court with an application for interim relief requiring the respondent to support and accommodate the applicant in accordance with his claimed age, pending determination of his age or until further order. The respondent filed Summary Grounds of Resistance to the claim on 3 July 2025.
8. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on all grounds by HHJ Carmel Wall sitting as a Judge of the High Court. The application for interim relief was refused and proceedings were transferred to the Upper Tribunal to determine whether the applicant is an adult or a child, and his date of birth.
Factual background and applicant’s account
9. References in square brackets to “(HB/X)” are to pages in the hearing bundle.
10. The applicant is a national of Ethiopia from Shire Inda Selassie. He arrived in the UK by boat on 5 March 2025 and claimed asylum on arrival. At his screening interview (HB/390) he stated that the basis of his asylum claim is that he would be forced by the authorities to join the military if he returned to Ethiopia and that he did not want to fight in the war (at [4.1]).
11. In these proceedings the applicant now claims that his date of birth is 22 March 2008. Based on this date of birth the applicant would have been 16 years and 11 months of age on the day he arrived in the UK, although at interview with Immigration Assessing Officers on arrival he stated that he was 17 (HB/410).
12. In his witness statement the applicant states that growing up he knew his age because his family told him on multiple occasions and his parents would hold birthday celebrations every year when his friends would visit and he would receive gifts. He states that he celebrated birthdays until he left Ethiopia when he was nearly 13.
13. Various different accounts have been provided by the applicant over time as to when he first knew his actual date of birth. I have set these out chronologically below and refer to them in my reasoning later in my decision.
14. When the applicant was questioned at the age enquiry on arrival in the UK (HB/408), he told immigration officers that his mother and father told him his date of birth when he started school. He subsequently stated that he started school aged four.
15. At the BEF (HB/10) the applicant told the social workers that he first knew his date of birth when he saw it written on his school certificate four years ago, when he was 13 years old.
16. In his witness statement dated 5 June 2025, the applicant states at [6] that he first knew his date of birth when he received his school certificate when he finished seventh grade at school (HB/150). He states at [20] of his statement (HB/153) that he got confused at the BEF and meant to say that he last saw the seventh grade certificate four years before.
17. In his recent witness statement dated 24 February 2026 at [3], the applicant states that he was “very young” when he first learned his date of birth and that he saw it on the school certificate he received on completion of kindergarten level three.
18. At the ‘minded to’ section of the BEF (HB/14-15) the applicant explained that a smuggler told him he could get a passport for him if he gave him his ID, so he had contacted his uncle who managed to find his school certificate and sent it to him. He stated that he had never looked at his date of birth before this time. When asked if he had a copy of the certificate now the applicant replied “No, it’s in my old phone” (HB/14). In his first witness statement at [6], the applicant states that he did not have his school certificate anymore as he lost it on his journey and had been asked to give it to people helping in the Mukerba camp in Sudan. He states that he does not have any other documents to prove his age.
19. In his most recent witness statement, the applicant states at [7] that the first time he ever had a phone was when he arrived in Calais and that he did not have a phone before then.
20. In relation to the applicant’s family composition his account has changed over time. In his first witness statement at [8] he states that his family is made up of his parents and five siblings. He names his five siblings and states that they are 24, 23, 11, 8 and 4 years of age. At [9] he states that his father is 65 years old and his mother is 59 years old. In this statement he refers to his “older brothers”.
21. However, in the applicant’s most recent witness statement, he states at [4] that there was a mistake made in his previous statement and that he has only one older brother and that he does not truly know the age of his parents at [5].
The law
22. Age assessments are carried out to determine whether young people without identity documents are in fact children and so entitled to services provided by local authorities.
23. In R (A) v Croydon LBC [2009] UKSC 8 the Supreme Court decided that “there is a right or a wrong answer” to the question whether an individual is or is not a child and that it was for the court to determine it. A person’s age is a fact precedent to a local authority exercising any of its powers under the Children Act 1989. The role of this Tribunal therefore is to determine, in its inquisitorial role and on the balance of probabilities, whether the applicant is a child. Neither party is required to prove the precedent fact (R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590).
24. The assessment of age is not subject to statute. There is no statutorily prescribed way to identify how local authorities are obliged to carry out age assessments. Procedures have been developed, primarily through caselaw. The judgment in R (B) v Merton London Borough Council [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin), [2003] 4 All ER 280, laid down guidance in judicial review proceedings on appropriate processes to be adopted by a local authority when assessing age and states that in cases where it is “very obvious” that a person is under or over the age of 18, there is normally no need for a “prolonged enquiry” into their age.
25. In R (B) v Merton, Stanley Burnton J (as he then was) held at [20] that where an applicant does not produce any reliable documentary evidence of their date of birth or age, the determination of their age will depend on the individual’s history, their physical appearance, and their behaviour. At [28] Stanley Burnton J provides:
Given the impossibility of any decision-makers being able to make an objectively verifiable determination of the age of an applicant who may be in the age range of, say, 16-20, it is necessary to take history from him or her with a view to determining whether it is true. That will enable the decision-maker in such a case to decide that the applicant is a child. Conversely, however, an untrue history, while relevant, is not necessarily indicative of a lie as to the age of the applicant. Lies may be told for reasons unconnected with the applicant’s case as to his age, for example to avoid his return to his country of origin. Furthermore, physical appearance and behaviour cannot be isolated from the question of the veracity of the applicant: appearance, behaviour and the credibility of his account are all matters that reflect on each other.
26. Relevant factors for consideration in the assessment of age have been considered in several judgments, including VS v The Home Office [2014] EWHC 2483 QB (“VS”), at [78], and R (HAM) v London Borough of Brent [2022] EWHC 1924 (Admin) which states at [10] that it is likely to be rare that a fair assessment would be based on physical appearance and demeanour alone, but at [32], there will be cases where physical appearance and demeanour will suffice. Evidence of demeanour can be notoriously unreliable and by itself constitutes only “somewhat fragile material” and will generally need to be viewed together with other things: R (NA) v London Borough of Croydon [2009] EWHC 2357 (Admin) (“NA”) per Blake J at [28].
27. In R (AM) v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] UKUT 000118 (IAC) (“AM”) the Vice President of the Upper Tribunal stated, at [15]:
In the present case the evidence is wide-ranging. It may therefore be appropriate to make some general observations about the impact of evidence of various sorts and from various sources in this type of case. First, we think that almost all evidence of physical characteristics is likely to be of very limited value. That is because, as pointed out by Kenneth Parker J in R (R) v Croydon [2011] EWHC 1473 (Admin) there is no clear relationship between chronological age and physical maturity in respect of most measurable aspects of such maturity.
28. The observations made by the Upper Tribunal in AM were endorsed by the Administrative Court in R (GE Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2015] EWHC 1406 (Admin) (“GE”) (at [74]). In the earlier decision of NA, Blake J indicated, at [27], that physical appearance alone was a notoriously unreliable basis for the assessment of chronological age. This was endorsed in VS (at [78]). In AM the following was also stated:
There may be value to be obtained from observations of demeanour and interaction with others made over a long period of time by those who have opportunity to observe an individual going about his ordinary life. It [is] difficult to see that any useful observations of demeanour or social interaction or maturity can be made in the course of a short interview between an individual and a strange adult.
29. In AM the Upper Tribunal considered that the view of a person who could point to consistent attitudes and a number of supporting instances over a considerable period of time was likely to carry weight that observations made in the artificial surroundings of an interview could not carry. The Tribunal also noted that the evidence of interaction between an age-disputed individual and other young people may well assist in making an age assessment. In GE the Administrative Court noted that people can behave in a formal interview in a way that is very different from their normal behaviour as a result of nervousness, fear, feeling of intimidation, or because they simply want the experience to end.
30. In MVN v London Borough of Greenwich [2015] EWHC 1942 (“MVN”) at [27] (Picken J), the Administrative Court observed that the primary focus will be on the credibility of the person’s evidence concerning their age, but it is permissible to have regard to credibility more generally, as long as the primary focus is not forgotten (see also R (AE) v London Borough of Croydon [2012] EWCA Civ 547 at [44] in the judgment of Aikens LJ, with whom Lloyd LJ agreed). Any assessment of credibility must be made “in the round” and in light of all relevant evidence, including background country evidence, and allowance should be given to the fact that asylum seekers may have problems giving coherent accounts of their history: R (N) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 1952 (Admin).
31. The Tribunal is not confined to choosing between the positions of the parties: R (W) v London Borough of Croydon [2012] EWHC 1130, at [3]. In these proceedings the respondent has not provided a position on a specific date of birth but has stated that the applicant is clearly an adult.
The hearing
32. At the hearing the Tribunal heard oral evidence from the applicant who adopted his two witness statements as his evidence-in-chief. He was cross-examined at length for most of the first day by Mr Auburn, following which Mr Bazini re-examined the applicant on certain matters arising from cross-examination. No other witnesses were called. On the second day of hearing Mr Auburn and Mr Bazini made submissions.
33. The evidence of the applicant and the advocates’ submissions are referred to in my judgment where it is necessary to do so to explain my decision and reasoning.
Findings of fact and reasoning
34. I remind myself that my role is to assess the applicant’s age and date of birth on the balance of probabilities. In doing so I consider all evidence in the round. In assessing the credibility of the applicant’s account, I take into account the fact that, if his account is true, he left Ethiopia when he was just 12 years old, and that a child or young person is likely to have difficulties in accurately recalling some things in their lives particularly when they were much younger.
35. I take as my starting point the respondent’s age assessment which has given rise to these proceedings. I take into account the principle that the better the quality of the initial decision making, the less likely it is that I will reach a different conclusion to that of the respondent council (R (JRZ) v Liverpool CC [2022] 4 WLUK 377, applying MVN at [47], per Picken J; and R (A) v Croydon LBC , at [33], per Lady Hale).
36. As indicated at [3] above, on 23 April 2025, around six weeks after his arrival in the United Kingdom, the applicant attended an age assessment interview with the respondent council following a referral from the Refugee Council. The assessment was called a “Brief enquiry form” assessment (HB/10) and was conducted by social workers Laura Billingham and Shamiso Solomon. Ms Billingham was the lead assessor. At the time of the BEF she was a Senior Social Worker and she is now the Practice Manager of the team at the respondent council. Ms Billingham states that she has undertaken approximately 20 to 30 age assessments over the last five years and has significant experience of working with young people from Ethiopia and unaccompanied asylum seeking children. The record of the interview, the minded to process, and the social workers’ conclusions, are at HB/13-16.
37. The outcome of the BEF was that the respondent’s social workers did not accept the applicant’s claimed age of 17 years with a date of birth of 21 February 2008, and believed he was “significantly over the age of 18”. The BEF did not indicate a specific age or date of birth. At the hearing, Mr Auburn’s position on behalf of the respondent was that the applicant’s most likely date of birth was either 21 February 2002, or 26 May 2002 for reasons I shall come to. If these dates are correct, the applicant would be either 23 or 24 years old at the date of the hearing (22 or 23 years old on arrival in the UK).
38. The assessors based their conclusions on physical and behavioural observations of the applicant, inconsistencies in the applicant’s account about how knew his age and date of birth, and observations from an examination of the applicant’s phone and those social media accounts which could be accessed.
39. In relation to the applicant’s physical appearance the BEF records:
[The applicant] has thick facial hair around the upper lip and there was evidence of longer term shaving down to his neck. His jawline and cheekbones were very defined suggesting physical maturity. He also had lines on his forehead, particularly deep between the eyebrows. He has deep dark tear troughs and his hair is curly, with a widows peak hair line, his hair appeared to be dyed orange with dark roots. His Adam’s Apple was prominent. He was of medium build and has a muscular neck and shoulders.
40. The assessors noted a number of “characteristics associated with full physical maturity” including:
noticeable nasolabial folds, forehead lines, and a well-developed jaw and cheekbone structure and visible beard and moustache. His phone pictures also show a physically muscular build, which further supports this assessment, as these features generally develop and change with age.
41. On examination of the applicant’s phone at the interview, the assessors identified a number of different photos of the applicant which are exhibited to the BEF at HB/17-19. The report states that the applicant confirmed the photographs were of him on his journey to the UK and that he gave several locations (not identified in the BEF). The BEF refers to several photographs of a young woman and that the applicant referred to her as his ex-girlfriend. The report also includes two screenshots of notes on the applicant’s phone in Amharic of what the assessors referred to as a “welfare interview”. When asked about these, the applicant stated that the interview notes related to an Eritrean asylum seeker who had kept the notes on the applicant’s phone because this person had asked him to. The applicant has subsequently provided a translation of these notes which demonstrate that they relate to an asylum screening interview.
42. It is apparent to me that the assessors did not assess the applicant’s age based on his physical appearance alone but that this was a significant factor. I remind myself that evidence of physical characteristics/appearance is likely to be of limited value. However, I take into account the lead assessor’s experience with young people from Ethiopia and East Africa and note Mr Auburn’s written submission that she has “an awareness that young people from this part of the world do not develop this degree of facial hair until they are older than the Applicant claims to be”.
43. Whilst I briefly share my own observations of the applicant’s appearance, these do not form any part of my decision on age. My observations did not reliably take me any further either way and evidence of physical characteristics is notoriously unreliable as an indicator of age. I observed the applicant to be a slightly built young man with some facial hair on his upper lip and a visible Adam’s apple. To my untrained eye, I could appreciate why the age assessors concluded that the applicant was significantly over the age of 18 and how the applicant’s appearance in his photographs and in person supported this conclusion. However, I also accept that the applicant could potentially pass for the age that he claims to be (17/18 years) and he has adduced witness statements from three witnesses with whom he has spent time, who have accepted the applicant’s age as claimed.
44. The BEF recorded that the applicant engaged in “conversation with confidence”, could understand and speak some English, and that he had been able to ask someone for directions to the office due to a local road closure. In the BEF reference is made to the applicant’s “confident and articulate communication, along with his ability to engage clearly with assessors”, which the assessors conclude indicated a “level of maturity beyond adolescence”. Whilst I accept that these matters relating to the applicant’s demeanour and behaviour are capable of being indicators of age, I must take into account the fact that the assessor only had the benefit of observing and engaging with the applicant for a short while and in relatively formal surroundings. In addition, the applicant has adduced three supporting witness statements of people who have spent more time with the applicant, in a variety of contexts, and who have found that his demeanour supports his claimed age.
45. At the BEF the assessors identified that the applicant had a phone and he was asked about his social media. He handed his phone to the assessors for examination with Instagram opened. When asked about whether he had any social media accounts, the applicant stated “just Instagram”. However, on further examination the assessors were able to identify from the applicant’s phone an Instagram account and a TikTok account [name of accounts withheld to preserve anonymity]. On searching Facebook, the assessors were also able to identify the applicant’s Facebook account from the photographs posted on that account. It is apparent the applicant was not honest with assessors about what social media accounts he had. Further matters relating to social media evidence are addressed below.
46. The applicant stated at interview that he had left Ethiopia on 19 November 2020 and arrived in the UK on 5 March 2025. He was questioned about how he knew his age at the BEF. The following exchange is recorded in the BEF:
How do you know your date of birth?
“I saw it written on the school certificate”
When was the first time you saw that?
“4 years ago”.
So, you only came to know your DOB 4 years ago?
“Yes”
How old were you at this time?
“13”
How old were you when you started school?
“3 years old”
47. In the ‘minded to’ section of the BEF the assessors put three specific points to the applicant. One point was their view that his physical presentation suggested to them that he was much older than 17. Another point was in relation to the photos on his phone and the notes on his phone of another person’s interview. The third point related to his account of how and when the applicant knew his date of birth. The assessors informed the applicant that his account was not consistent with the timeline of his journey. In response the applicant stated that on his journey a smuggler told him that he could get a passport for him if he could get some ID or a certificate. He stated that his uncle had managed to find a school certificate and sent it to him in Sudan. He stated that he no longer had a copy of this certificate because it was on his old phone. He further stated that although had seen the certificate before, he had not looked at the date of birth on it before he received it from his uncle.
48. In summary, the conclusion at the BEF that the applicant was significantly older than his claimed age was reached by the assessors based on a number of factors including credibility concerns, his photos and social media accounts, as well as his physical appearance, demeanour and behaviour. Although this was a short-form assessment rather than a full “Merton assessment”, it is evidence on which I am prepared to attach weight in my overall assessment in light of the lead assessor’s age assessing experience and because the conclusion reached was not based on appearance and demeanour alone.
49. I also note that the Immigration Officers identified similar concerns to the respondent’s age assessors when the applicant first arrived in the UK on 5 March 2025. The age enquiry conducted on 5 March 2025 was conducted by Immigration Officer K Howes and Social Worker J Fuller. Also present was another Immigration Officer, and the process and enquiry was agreed by a Chief Immigration Officer P Eyden (HB/408).
50. The enquiry report stated that the applicant appeared to be substantially older than his claimed 17 years and noted:
He had facial hair around the mouth and upper lip and showed evidence of shaving. His skin was weathered. He also had a pronounced jawline and adult cheekbone structure. He had lines on his forehead and on his temples, his hair was beginning to show evidence of receding. His Adam’s Apple was prominent. He had lines around his eyes and had lines on his neck. He was quiet but confident in the way he spoke.
….
[The applicant] has a receding hair line. He has lines formed on his for forehead. [The applicant] states that he has not shaved previously but there are signs that he has, these signs are evident on his neck. [The applicant] has a prominent adam’s apple.
Deep voice, indicative of an adult and post pubescent.
[The applicant] did not want to make eye contact during interactions. He was clenching his jaw throughout and was fidgeting. When challenged on his age, he did have a smirk. [The applicant] understood English and appears to be highly educated.
Physical Appearance (Consider Journey & Trauma):
Claimant has a slight body frame which is atypical of Ethiopian males, and he has been shaving which usually happens in late teens, early twenties for Ethiopian males. The claimant has a receding hairline with pronounced frown lines on his forehead and prominent veins on his temples. The claimants Adam’s apple is well-developed and low, he has a deep, even toned voice, I believe that the claimant has recently shaved but left some hair on top lip and chin to show unsubstantial growth and appear younger. The claimant has small hands, but they are in proportion to his physique. The claimant is of very slight build but has define forearms with prominent veins and muscles. The claimant is the typical ‘Y’ shape of having broader shoulders than his hips and a defined facial bone structure with prominent brow, and jawline. All physical appearances are indicative of an (sic) grown, developed, adult male.
Demeanour (Consider Anxiety & Trauma):
Claimant walked into the room nervously, he wrote his name and DOB down and understood some English, he appeared to need time to write down his DOB and appeared to be working it out. When answering questions, he appeared nervous and looked down at the desk throughout the interview, The claimant was playing with his fingers and looking at them when he was answering questions.
51. The report also records the questions put to the applicant and his response to these (via an interpreter) (HB/410). For reasons I shall come to, the following sections are relevant:
How old are you? 17
What is your date of birth? 21/02/2008
Who told you this? My mother and my father
When did you learn it? When I started school.
……
Do you have any documentation to prove your age, identity & nationality? No
Q: have you ever had a passport or ID document?
A: Yes, you have to be 18 if you want to get ID.
Q: Do you have any electronic copies of documents on your phone which could prove your age.
A: No, my mobile phone is empty.
How old were you when you got it? I started school when he was 4 (sic)
Briefly tell me why you have come to the UK? To have a peaceful life.
When did you leave your home country? 2020
Q: How old were you when you left?
A: 13 years old
…..
When did you first shave? I have never shaved,
Q: Are you saying you have never shaved?
A: No, never
…………………
Q: How old were you when you finished school?
A: (Interpreter stated that he initially stated 17 but then changed his answer to 13)
Q: What grade were you when you finished school?
A: I stopped in the middle of year 8.
52. I acknowledge that the applicant’s interview with Immigration Officers took place after what would have been an arduous and stressful journey across the Channel and I make allowance for this. However, even making allowance for the circumstances, there are matters arising from this interview that either alone, or when compared to the applicant’s account at other times, raise significant concerns regarding the credibility of the applicant and his truthfulness about his true age (or lack thereof).
53. It is notable, and I find damaging to the credibility of the applicant’s account, that when asked at what age the applicant finished school, he initially answered 17, before changing the answer to four years younger, 13. Although I make allowance for the context at the time of the interview, having regard to all of the applicant’s answers at the interview, he did not appear to have any problem understanding what he was being asked, answering questions and providing responses in relation to age related questions. The applicant does not address this matter in his witness statements. When this matter was put to the applicant on cross-examination he initially stated that he did not know what he was being asked by Mr Auburn, and the question was put to him again. He then responded that maybe he had not understood the question he was asked at the interview, or maybe he heard the interpreter state that he had said “17”, and he then corrected it. The latter explanation is not supported by the interview record which has not been challenged previously. I find the suggestion that maybe the applicant did not understand the question hard to accept. It was a straight-forward, short question looking for a factual response. He had answered previous questions of a similar nature without any difficulty. Given that on the applicant’s account, he left his home country in the same year he had finished school, I find it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to accurately recall this detail; at least to the extent that there would not be four years difference between his initial and his corrected response.
54. There are other notable discrepancies on various matters; between the applicant’s account to Immigration Officers, his account at the BEF, his account in his first witness statement, his account in his second witness statement, his instructions to solicitors recorded in the witness statements of Martin Bridger, and his oral evidence at the hearing. The main discrepancies are set out below. Taking these and other credibility issues into account, I find I must accept Mr Auburn’s submission that I can have no faith in the applicant’s evidence.
55. The applicant filed a second witness statement dated 26 February 2026 which seeks to qualify or ‘correct’ certain aspects of his first witness statement of 5 June 2025, most of which had been raised as issues in the respondent’s skeleton argument filed on 13 February 2026.
56. In the applicant’s second witness statement he states that his date of birth in the Ethiopian calendar is 13.07.2000 and that he learned to convert this to the Gregorian calendar on his journey to the UK from the people he was travelling with.
57. On cross-examination the applicant was asked the name of the month of his birth in the Ethiopian calendar, the seventh month. He responded that the name was “Tahsas”. The interpreter indicated that the equivalent month for Tahsas in the Gregorian calendar is December. Mr Auburn put to the applicant that the name of the seventh month in the Ethiopian calendar is in fact “Megabit” and that 13.07.2000 converts to 22 March 2008 and not the applicant’s claimed birth date of 21 February 2008. The applicant accepted that the seventh month was called Megabit and stated that there must have been a mistake made when he previously converted his date of birth into the Gregorian calendar. Consequently, in submissions Mr Bazini adopted the date of birth of 22 March 2008 rather than 21 February 2008. The respondent adduced evidence of the Ethiopian calendar exhibited to the most recent witness statement of Laura Billingham.
58. Whilst I consider it entirely possible that a mistake could have been made previously when converting the applicant’s date of birth from the Ethiopian to the Gregorian calendar, this does not explain why the applicant initially provided the wrong name for his month of birth in his own language and calendar. This is all the more surprising in light of the applicant’s most recent account that he has known his date of birth since he was “very young” (at [3] applicant’s witness statement of 26 February 2026). I consider that the name of one’s birth month is likely to be detail a person could easily recall if they had known their date of birth from a young age as the applicant claims.
59. I accept Mr Auburn’s submission, that by the conclusion of the applicant’s evidence at the hearing, he had provided (at least) five different accounts of how and when he first knew his date of birth.
60. As indicated in the factual background section of this decision, at the interview on arrival with Immigration Officers the applicant stated that he knew his date of birth from his parents when he first started school (HB/410).
61. At the BEF the applicant stated that he first knew his date of birth when he saw it on his school certificate when he received it whilst in Sudan when he was 13 (HB/11, 14-15).
62. In his first witness statement the applicant stated at [5] that he first knew his date of birth from annual birthday celebrations and his family had told him on multiple occasions (HB/150); but then at [6] stated that he knew his date of birth when he finished seventh grade when he received a school certificate which had his date of birth on. This later alternative account is also inconsistent with the applicant’s oral evidence that he received a school certificate at the end of every school year. At [20] of the applicant’s first statement he seeks to correct an account given at the BEF stating:
During the age assessment, I said that I saw my school certificate 4 years ago. They asked me many questions and I was very uncomfortable discussing my past, I got confused and mistakenly said that I first saw it 4 years ago. I was very stressed and confused, there were lots of things that I needed to remember which is when I got my words mixed up. What I meant by this is that this is when I last saw the certificate, rather than the first time I saw it. I first saw my school certificate after 7th grade, when it was issued to me. My uncle sent me the documents around 4 years ago, when I was in the camp in Sudan. He gave it to people we knew from our village who were travelling to the camp and gave it to me there.
63. In the applicant’s second witness statement at [3], and in oral evidence, the applicant stated that he knew his date of birth when his saw his Kindergarten grade three certificate, as opposed to his seventh grade certificate. Furthermore, in oral evidence the applicant initially referred to his eighth grade certificate rather than seventh grade, despite it being his account that he left Ethiopia before completion of his school year. In his asylum screening interview, the applicant stated that he had completed grade 8 (HB/395).
64. When the various inconsistencies were put to the applicant on cross-examination he stated either that people had misunderstood him or he had got mixed up between when he first saw and when he last saw the school certificate/s. Whilst it is plausible that the applicant could become confused during an interview whilst he felt under stress, his explanation does not address the stark inconsistency between the two witness statements prepared by his solicitor and adopted as his evidence in chief at the hearing. Furthermore, at a number of points the applicant clearly stated that the first time he learned his date of birth was from his grade 7 school certificate; for example at the BEF, having stated his uncle sent the grade 7 school certificate to him in Sudan “The school gave me the certificate, but I never looked at my DOB before this time” and at [6] of the applicant’s first witness statement, “I know my date of birth because when I finished seventh grade, I received a school certificate which had my date of birth on it. This was the first time I learned of my date of birth”.
65. The credibility concerns and inconsistencies identified above are compounded by further difficulties with the applicant’s accounts which bear upon the evidence regarding how and when the applicant came to know his date of birth.
66. In his first witness statement the applicant appeared to be suggesting that he received a physical copy of the school certificate whilst he was in Sudan. At [20] he states, “He gave it to people we knew from our village who were travelling to the camp and gave it to me there”.
67. In contrast, in oral evidence the applicant stated that he received the certificate electronically by it being sent to another person’s phone in the camp in Sudan.
68. At the BEF the applicant was asked if he still had a copy of the certificate, to which he responded “No, it’s in my old phone”. This would clearly indicate that the applicant’s account at this stage was that he received the certificate electronically directly to his own phone. However, in oral evidence and in his second witness statement, the applicant departed from this account, now maintaining (at [7] of the statement) that “The first time that I ever had a phone was when I arrived in Calais. I did not have a phone at any time before that.”
69. This assertion was explored by Mr Auburn on cross-examination. The previous accounts given by the applicant were put to him and he was taken to the witness statement of his solicitor, Martin Bridger, dated 30 July 2025 (HB/164) which states at [4]:
The Applicant instructs that he has a Samsung A14 and that he acquired his mobile phone during his journey to the UK while in France. He instructs that he was given this phone by one of the individuals he had met during his journey, after having lost his previous phone, a Samsung Galaxy X Duos, in the sea while travelling.
70. On cross-examination the applicant maintained his most recent position that he had never previously owned a phone. Despite the very specific detail contained in Mr Bridger’s statement, including the make and model of a previous phone, the applicant claimed that he did not think he had said that to his solicitor, or, if he did say that it was a mistake, or, that maybe this was an answer that he gave to a different question. I am wholly unpersuaded by any of the applicant’s attempts to explain away this information in his solicitor’s account. I find it most likely that the applicant forgot he had provided this information previously to his solicitor and has now departed from his previous account believing that it is in his best interests to claim that he did not previously have a phone. By adopting this approach, I find it likely that the applicant is seeking to deny the existence of evidence which could have potentially indicated that the applicant has been in contact with his family since he left Ethiopia and/or could undermine his account in relation to his use of social media. Such evidence could potentially significantly undermine his most recent version of events and his claimed age.
71. Even on the applicant’s account, he had access to phones of others he was travelling with. In these circumstances it is difficult to understand why his only attempt to contact any family in Ethiopia was to contact his uncle when he needed a document. It is most surprising that he would not have attempted to contact his mother and siblings. On his account, having left his home country aged 12 and having just witnessed the death of his father and brother/s, one would imagine he would be desperate to contact his remaining family to ensure they were safe and to reassure them that he was.
72. I also find the applicant’s suggestion that, in the absence of a phone, he maintained contact with agents, to facilitate his journey from Ethiopia, in person and through third parties, to wholly lack credibility.
73. Connected to the telephone issue, further issues arise from the limited social media evidence before me. I find that I am able to draw certain inferences from the evidence I do have before me and from the fact that I consider the applicant has tried to conceal his use of social media.
74. It is necessary first for me to recount key dates in the chronology in relation to the disclosure of social media evidence.
75. From the outset it would appear that the applicant has not been honest about his social media use. When first asked about social media accounts by the respondent’s age assessors, he said he only had Instagram. This was not the truth. His Facebook and TikTok accounts were discovered by the age assessors at the interview or shortly afterwards.
76. Unbeknownst to the applicant, the day after the BEF, on 24 April 2025, the lead assessor, Laura Billingham, conducted a search of the publicly accessible information from the applicant’s known social media accounts and took screenshots/photographs of relevant information. These are exhibited to her witness statement dated 18 December 2025 (HB/203-236).
77. The screenshots and photographs taken by Ms Billingham include the applicant’s Instagram profile at that time (at HB/213). The “bio” details for the applicant’s account included the words “The cute devil”, “Hustler”, “great smile” and “Gemini”. The word Gemini was flanked by the zodiac symbol for Gemini. I noted that earlier in cross-examination, before the applicant was questioned on the screenshot of his social media account profile, the applicant accepted that if his birthdate was 26 May, his zodiac star sign would be Gemini. Notably, he clearly understood what was meant by this question and did not, at that stage, claim to have no knowledge of signs of the zodiac.
78. On 24 July 2025 the Upper Tribunal directed that the applicant disclose information from his social media accounts.
79. The statement of Martin Bridger dated 30 July 2025 (HB/164) confirms that a “proportionate social media review” of the applicant’s phone was conducted on 25 July 2025. It was confirmed that the applicant had Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp and Facebook accounts. The applicant stated that he did not use the Facebook account. The date of birth provided for the applicant for his Facebook and Instagram accounts is 26 May 2002. The date of birth provided for his TikTok account was given as 6 May 2004. The applicant stated that the dates of birth provided had been chosen purely at random. Very little further information was provided and it was stated that the applicant did not post on his accounts. It was stated that the applicant’s TikTok account was opened after he arrived in the UK. He would have known at this stage that his age was disputed by the UK authorities. The documentation indicates that the other social media accounts, with the date of birth of 26 May 2002, were opened before the applicant came to the UK.
80. The profile information for the accounts was exhibited to Mr Bridger’s statement. Exhibit MB4 (HB/175) provides information from the applicant’s phone concerning his Instagram account. From this it can be seen that the applicant had changed his bio details from the time of Ms Billingham’s search on 24 April 2025. The bio now referred to “Hustler”, “Freedom”, “Wisdom”, “Wasting of time”, “stay humble” and “delusions”. All previous references to “Gemini” had been removed from the account profile.
81. At a CMR conducted at the UT on 31 October 2025 the respondent sought further disclosure of social media material on the basis that the disclosure to date had been inadequate and did not comply fully with the previous directions. On 5 November 2025, the UT directed that the applicant must comply fully with the previous directions ordering disclosure of social media accounts. A further statement from Martin Bridger dated 4 December 2025 (HB/183) stated that the applicant no longer had the phone that was previously searched by him, that the applicant’s new phone was not logged into TikTok, and there had been no new activity on Instagram or Facebook.
82. It is submitted in the respondent’s skeleton argument that the first the applicant would have been aware that Laura Billingham had seen (and recorded) his previous bio on his Instagram account would have been on 18 December 2025, presumably when the witness statement was served on the applicant’s solicitor.
83. The applicant was cross-examined on whether he had deleted any part of his Instagram profile bio previously. He responded that he was “100 per cent sure“ that he had not. He stated that he had simply chosen random words he had heard in films in his bio. Following further cross-examination when the applicant was referred to the screenshot of his Instagram bio taken by Laura Billingham on 24 April (LB1, HB/213), he ultimately accepted that there had been a change to his bio details sometime after the BEF. The applicant was unable to explain why he previously had a reference to Gemini and the zodiac signs for Gemini in his bio, why he had previously stated that he had made no changes to his bio, and why he had deleted the references to Gemini before he took his phone to his solicitor for the social media search. He stated, “I don’t have any answers”. I find that the applicant made changes to his Instagram profile before the social media search because he considered the references to Gemini undermined his account of his claimed age.
84. The witness statement of Laura Billingham of 18 December 2025 (HB/204) states that she carried out a further search of the applicant’s publicly available social media accounts on 24 July 2025 and took screenshots of the accounts and photographs the applicant had posted on his Facebook account (exhibited at LB2). When she conducted a further search on 27 October 2025, however, the photographs she had seen previously on the applicant’s Facebook account were no longer publicly accessible and the Instagram and TikTok accounts were no longer publicly accessible. The applicant had therefore changed his account settings from public to private. The only information that was publicly accessible was the list of the applicant’s Facebook “followers” which is reproduced at Exhibit LB3 (HB/224). In re-examination the applicant was asked to identify which of the followers he had met or knew personally, and he identified just five of 210 people following him. He stated that he met all of these people on his journey to the UK. I find it surprising that it appears the applicant has only followed two of these people back and yet follows a large number of people whom he claims he has not met in person. It is also surprising that, on the applicant’s account, he is not following anyone he personally knew previously in his home country when he has 210 people following him.
85. The applicant was also taken to screenshots at LB2. At HB/221-222 is a screenshot of three different people wishing the applicant a happy birthday. The posts in question are dated 26 and 27 May. At least one of the happy birthday posts has been “liked” by the applicant. There is a “like” and a comment in relation to the other birthday posts but it is not possible to ascertain from the screenshots who made these engagements.
86. The applicant stated on cross-examination that he only “liked” the happy birthday post/s to show consideration to the posters and because he did not think it was appropriate to correct the well-wishers and say that it was not actually his birthday at that time. I am aware that social media platforms can send notifications of birthdays of “friends” and “followers” which may have prompted the birthday wishes. However, I do not accept the applicant’s claim that he was simply being “considerate” in liking the happy birthday posts. I find the most likely explanation of events is that the birthday the applicant used for both his Facebook and Instagram accounts, 26 May, is in fact his true birthday. This finding is supported by the previous inclusion of references to “Gemini” in his Instagram account bio. On the balance of probabilities, I find the applicant removed the reference to Gemini when he realised his social media accounts would be searched in these proceedings, and that this reference could undermine his account of his claimed birth date.
87. From the list of the applicant’s Facebook “followers” at LB3 (HB/224-236) it is apparent that the three people who had wished him a happy birthday at the end of May, had been removed as followers. The applicant stated that he had not removed them and speculated that the people in question had removed themselves. I am not persuaded by this response but consider it most likely that the applicant removed people who might turn out to be a problem for him in relation to these proceedings. Furthermore, the applicant accepted that he had changed his social media accounts from public to private settings and I find this is indicative of someone who has something to hide, particularly given the timing of events as set out above.
88. The screenshots provided by Laura Billingham also indicate that the applicant used his Facebook account at least as recently as the end of May last year. This appears to be inconsistent with his instructions to his solicitor in July that he did not use his Facebook account (HB/165 at [5]).
89. In the various photographs of the applicant in the papers before me, including those from his social media accounts, and as noted by Immigration Officers on arrival and at the BEF, the applicant has noticeable facial hair above his upper lip. His appearance was the same at the hearing in this regard. The applicant stated in oral evidence that he had never shaved. However, the Home Office Assessing Officer’s report states that that the applicant showed signs of shaving and the BEF refers to “evidence of longer term shaving down to his neck” (HB/13). Although it was not possible for me to identify whether or not the applicant had previously shaved from the copies of the photographs before me or from observing the applicant from a distance at the hearing, I place some weight on the assessor’s observations at the BEF because they are trained in age assessment and would have been in close proximity to the applicant, as were the Immigration Assessing Officers.
90. In my assessment of the applicant’s age, I do not attach any significant weight to the fact the applicant has facial hair. I accept that facial hair is not an uncommon feature of adolescent males, although I note the respondent’s submission that Ms Billingham is aware from her professional experience that males of the applicant’s ethnicity commonly develop facial hair at later stage of development than others. However, I find the applicant’s claim in his statement and in oral evidence that he has never shaved to lack credibility in view of the assessors’ observations and the fact the applicant appeared to have the same amount of facial hair at the time of the hearing as that depicted in photographs from one year ago, on his arrival in the UK. The growth of facial hair in a male is a sign of maturity, although I accept not necessarily a sign of adulthood. I find the fact that it appears the applicant has not been truthful about having ever shaved, indicates that he was not being transparent about his true age and is attempting to portray himself as younger than he actually is.
91. Whilst the statements of Laura Wyllie appear to provide some support for the applicant’s account regarding lack of facial hair and not shaving, her conclusions are based at least in part on things the applicant has told her. She has obviously believed what the applicant has said about his age and past experiences. However, I have found that the applicant has not told the truth in these proceedings on a number of matters. I take into account that throughout Ms Wyllie’s interactions with the applicant he was aware that his age was disputed by the authorities and that his physical appearance was specifically referred to in the ‘minded to’ process at the BEF. I also take into account the fact that the applicant has not lived with Ms Wylie and she would be unable to speak from personal experience as to whether or not the applicant has ever shaved.
92. In addition to the credibility concerns arising from the applicant’s account of how he knows his date of birth and regarding his social media use, I find that his account of his journey to the UK also lacks credibility.
93. In assessing the credibility of the applicant’s account, I remind myself that my primary focus must be on the applicant’s account of how he knows his age and date of birth, although it is permissible to have regard to credibility more generally as long as the primary focus is not forgotten and care is taken to ensure that particular importance is afforded to the credibility of evidence in relation to his age. However, if the applicant’s evidence concerning his life before coming to the UK and his journey lacks credibility, that may be relevant to his overall credibility.
94. The applicant’s account from his first witness statement (HB/149) is that he left Ethiopia aged 12. He states that he saw his elder brothers and father killed in front of his eyes and started running without the chance to see his mother and other siblings before he left. He states that he fled the area following a group of people, going first to Sudan by foot where he says he stayed in a refugee camp for two years and two months. He states that from here he went with agents to Libya where he stayed for another two years. He claims that other people he was travelling with paid the agents. From Libya he says that he took the boat to Italy and after five days there he then travelled by train to France. He states that he lived in “the Jungle” before taking a small boat across the Channel after around a month in France. In his statement the applicant claims that he made money in the Jungle letting people use his tent in exchange for around 5 euros and that he saved that money to make the journey to the UK.
95. On cross-examination the applicant maintained his account that neither he nor his family had paid the agents for his travel at any point, but that others in the group had paid for him out of kindness. The applicant initially stated that he was taken to Libya by agents having agreed to work for them but that he did not do so. He then stated that in the two year period he was in Libya he was made to “work” for the agents for eight months, although he later accepted that he had previously stated this was for six months. For the remaining 18 months, he claims that he was in hiding with the group and agents in the desert.
96. When Mr Auburn suggested to the applicant that it was not plausible that agents would keep him with them and allow him to not work for 18 months, the applicant then claimed, for the first time, that the agents had made a hostage video of him in order to make some money by selling him. He claimed that he showed the video to the Home Office and to the respondent. There is no record of any such video. There has been no mention of this matter previously. Additionally, there is no explanation as to how the applicant would come to have a copy of any such video if he did not own a phone until his arrival in Calais. I fully accept Mr Auburn’s submission that it is inconceivable that such a video had been shared with the authorities in the UK and no record of this had been made.
97. I accept Mr Bazini’s submission that some inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence regarding whether or not he had worked for the agents may be explained by a misinterpretation of what was meant by “work”. However, this would not explain all of the inconsistencies and difficulties with the applicant’s evidence regarding his time spent in Libya. There appear to be large periods of time on the applicant’s journey that are simply unaccounted for, other than the applicant suggesting he did not go out and was in hiding. At points in the applicant’s oral evidence, he was also inconsistent in his answers about whether he was relating events that occurred in Sudan or in Libya.
98. The cross-examination of the applicant on his time spent in France also disclosed various inconsistencies in this account. The applicant initially stated that he had worked for the agents whilst in the Jungle. This changed to being paid by the Red Cross for helping to erect tents. He stated that he was paid 10 or 20 Euros per tent and managed to save 730 Euros in total for his passage to the UK. These responses provided by the applicant in cross-examination are clearly inconsistent with his previous account in his witness statements. There is obvious force to Mr Auburn’s submission that the applicant had changed his account when he realised that it did not work; that earning 5 Euros a night to rent out his tent over the period of a month would not provide him with sufficient funds to pay the agents for his journey across the Channel. This is a further matter which had been raised in the respondent’s skeleton argument.
99. As detailed above, there has been a changing narrative by the applicant in certain respects regarding his account of his journey from Ethiopia to the UK; including a fundamental change to the detail he provided in how he made money for his trip to the UK during his time at the camp in France, and an extraordinary assertion for the first time in oral evidence that he was going to be sold and a hostage video had been made of him which he had shared with the authorities in the UK. Although I accept that evidence of the applicant’s journey does not directly relate to his age and date of birth, as part of my holistic assessment of the evidence before me I find that I am unable to place any weight of the applicant’s account of his journey to the UK which, in turn, impacts on my overall assessment of the credibility and veracity of the applicant’s evidence.
100. A further credibility issue arises from the applicant’s account in his statements about the composition of his family. In his first witness statement the applicant states that his father was 65, his mother is 59, and that he has five siblings: Y aged 24, H aged 23, E aged 11, Y2 aged 8 and D aged 4. He states that he knows the ages of his siblings because they all celebrated their birthdays together.
101. It was submitted in the respondent’s skeleton argument that it would be remarkable for a woman to have given birth twice in her fifties, even more so a woman from a developing country such as Ethiopia.
102. The second witness statement of the applicant, dated 25 February 2026, was filed with the Tribunal shortly before the hearing (and after the respondent’s skeleton argument was provided). Amongst other things, the statement addresses the applicant’s evidence in his first statement about his family. In his most recent statement, the applicant seeks to explain that he did not truly know the age of his parents as they never celebrated their birthdays. He also states now that there was a mistake in the “recording” of his first statement and that he has only one older brother.
103. On cross-examination the applicant stated that he had previously just estimated his mother’s age and he had told his solicitor that he was not sure of her age. However, I note the applicant’s reference to his mother’s age in his first statement was not qualified in this, or any way. It is also difficult to understand why, if the applicant was merely estimating his mother’s age, he would identify the exact age of 59 rather than say “around 60”. I find it is most likely that the applicant’s solicitor raised with him the issues about his account identified in the respondent’s recent skeleton argument, and that the applicant sought to ‘repair’ these issues arising from his previous account.
104. I am also unpersuaded by the applicant’s recent claim that his previous references to older brothers in the plural was incorrect. He referred to his “older brothers” at more than one point in his previous accounts, although he made no reference to family members at his asylum screening interview and what he now claims happened to his father and brother/s. It is hard to understand how the applicant could have approved his first witness statement, when “brothers” (plural) is a very different word in Amharic to “brother” (singular). As explored on cross-examination, the singular is wondim and the plural is wondemoch. Although nothing specifically turns on this point in relation to the assessment of the applicant’s age, I find it is a further example of the applicant’s changing narrative and inconsistencies in his account, as well as his lack of regard for, at the very least, accuracy in his evidence.
105. In light of the numerous issues arising from the applicant’s own evidence, as detailed above, I find that I can place no weight on the applicant’s evidence in relation to his true circumstances and his journey to the UK. I have, however, considered with care the witness statements he adduced in support of his claimed age.
106. In support of his claim the applicant adduced two witness statements of Laura Wyllie dated 20 August 2025 and 12 February 2026, the witness statement of Shannon Wyllie dated 11 February 2026, and the witness statement of Naomi Pike dated 12 February 2026.
107. Laura Wyllie is a volunteer with the charity “Care4Calais” who worked at the hotel where the applicant previously stayed. She states that she has interacted with the applicant during clothing distributions, meal times, casual conversation, art sessions, group activities (such as football, card games and bowling), and, more recently, supporting him at his new accommodation with basic cooking skills, helping him to register with a GP, and supporting him in an application for the “King’s Trust” programme. Laura Wyllie refers to contact she and her partner have had with the applicant and her observations during those times, including her belief that his demeanour and physical development (including facial hair) are consistent with that of a teenage boy rather than someone in their twenties. She states that the applicant needs nurturing and support like any other 17 year old. Her most recent statement refers to further matters which she considers supports this view: such as the applicant having a strong desire to fit in with his peers at the King’s Trust and prioritising peer acceptance over long-term planning; that the applicant does not like making decisions; that his time management and sense of urgency are not “fully developed”; and, the applicant asking Ms Wyllie’s partner how to shave and whether he can talk to girls.
108. Laura Wyllie’s daughter, Shannon, also provided a statement in support of the applicant. Shannon qualified as a social worker in 2015 and has worked with Children’s Services in fostering and adoption. She has met the applicant on five occasions at social events organised by her mother. From Shannon’s observations and based on her professional experience, she states that she “has no reason to disbelieve the Applicant’s stated age of 17 years. His general demeanour does not reflect that of an adult man. His physical presentation, including his general physical maturity, facial hair and behaviour is consistent with 16-18 year olds [she has] supported professionally.”
109. Naomi Pike is a Team Leader at the King’s Trust programme in Kettering and worked with the applicant on the programme. It is not stated how long this was for. Ms Pike acknowledges that she is not qualified to make a “medical or legal determination of age” but states that she can provide her professional observations based on “sustained interaction with [the applicant] in an educational and developmental setting”. She goes on to state that the applicant consistently displayed behaviours and mannerisms, and levels of emotional and social development that she would typically associate with a teenager of approximately 16 to 18 years old, including: sensitivity to feedback and a need for reassurance and guidance; his communication style and peer interactions; reliance on structure, routine and support from staff; decision-making, confidence levels and problem-solving skills.
110. Although evidence of demeanour can be 'somewhat fragile material' and is notoriously unreliable, it is capable of attracting more weight from those who have observed the applicant over an extended period of time in different contexts. I accept that Laura Wyllie has had regular contact with the applicant. Shannon has met with him on five occasions. I do not know the period over which Naomi Pike was interacting with the applicant, but this is likely to have been for much longer than the short periods, and more formal context, of the Home Office interview and the BEF. I also note the experience which each of the witnesses states that they have in interacting with children and young people. I take into account the fact that Shannon Wyllie is a social worker who has worked in Children’s Services. However, she does not claim to be trained in age assessment. In relation to her comments on the applicant’s physical appearance, no mention is made in her statement of her experience of young people from the applicant’s country or part of the world.
111. In my view, the observations of behaviour and demeanour shared by the applicant’s witnesses could also apply to a young adult in a new country and do not necessarily indicate that the applicant is the age he claims to be. For example, it is not unusual for a young person without work or study or other structure in their lives, to rely on others to provide assistance with structure and routine, or to have difficulty in decision-making and managing money. Many of the observations made could also be attributed to a young person’s experience in coming to terms with a new culture and navigating a new life without previous experience of the culture and language. I do not accept that it is children alone who want to ‘fit in’. It is clear from the statements that the witnesses have accepted the applicant’s account of his age and experiences prior to his arrival in the UK. There is a case for considering that their opinions may have been shaped by this and their observations of appearance, demeanour and behaviour have been made through this lens; a possible instance of ‘confirmation bias’. In assessing their evidence, I also bear in mind that throughout the period of the applicant’s engagement with his witnesses, he was aware that his claimed age was disputed from the time of his arrival in the UK. I find it is not unrealistic to consider that in this situation he would be careful about how he portrayed himself to and engaged with others whilst the issue of his age was being resolved.
112. Although the evidence from the applicant’s witnesses is capable of attracting some weight, any weight that I am able to attach is, I find, incapable of addressing the significant credibility concerns I have identified.
113. The applicant has provided multiple different accounts of how he knows his date of birth. Furthermore, the date which he has maintained throughout these proceedings was changed during the course of the hearing when it became apparent that the date he had given in the Ethiopian calendar did not convert to 21 February 2008. Even if this error was attributable to a previous mistake made on conversion to the Gregorian calendar, which had only been identified at the hearing, it does not explain why the applicant gave the incorrect name for his claimed month of birth on cross-examination. The applicant has been inconsistent about what age he knew his date of birth, and how. One of the accounts provided by the applicant was that he knew his date of birth for the first time when he received a copy of a school certificate from his uncle whilst he was in Sudan. On his account, he managed to make contact with his uncle despite having no phone of his own. On this account he would have been required to memorise his uncles’ contact details in order to contact him for this document. No satisfactory explanation has been provided as to why the applicant cannot now contact the same uncle again to obtain a copy of documentation which could establish his true age, which leads me to conclude that any genuine documentation would not support his claimed age. On cross-examination the applicant referred to his uncle changing his address and having a poor connection where he lived.
114. In addition, I find the applicant’s account of his journey to the UK to be wholly lacking in credibility. The applicant’s initial account of his journey was lacking in any real details even though this was (on his account) for nearly four and a half years of his short life. His account makes vague references to agents assisting his journey through Sudan, to Libya, Italy, France and then the UK, but in terms of payment he could only refer in vague terms to payments being made on his behalf by fellow travellers. He has provided an inconsistent account about making some money in the camp in France, either by renting out his tent or being paid to erect tents.
115. In addition to the matters detailed above, I accept Mr Auburn’s submission that the applicant’s timeline does not work. On his account he would have been part way though school year grade 7 when he left Ethiopia rather than grade 8. On the balance of probabilities, I do not accept that this discrepancy is explained by the applicant’s first witness statement at [10] (HB/151) where he refers to the school “skipping” one grade during the Covid pandemic to be “promoted” to the next grade despite not having done the work for that school year. On the applicant’s timeline he would have started grade 6 in September 2019. This is the school year which would have been predominantly impacted by the pandemic. The applicant confirmed that the school year in Ethiopia runs from September of each year. I interpret the applicant’s evidence at [10] of his first witness statement, as indicating that, in common with many countries around the world, all students advanced to the next year of their education as normal despite the cancellation of school during the pandemic and having missed much of the work for that school year. The applicant does not suggest that he alone skipped an entire further year of his education, to go up to grade 8 in September 2019, nor does he provide any reason why this would be the case.
116. I accept Mr Bazini’s submission that I must conduct a holistic assessment of the evidence in the round, and that on the applicant’s account he was very young when he left Ethiopia which, in Mr Bazini’s submission, could explain the difficulties the applicant has in recollecting detail, particularly so in respect of traumatic events. I further accept that the applicant’s inconsistent accounts on how he knows his date of birth do not in themselves indicate the applicant was an adult when he arrived in the UK. However, taken together with clear instances where I find the applicant has lied, where he has sought to conceal evidence from his social media accounts, and the lack of credibility of the applicant’s account in many different respects, I find, on the balance of probabilities, that the most likely explanation for the discrepancies in the applicant’s account and his changing narrative is because the applicant is not being truthful about his age. I find that this supports a conclusion that the applicant was probably already an adult when he arrived in the UK.
117. I find that limited weight can be attached to the observations recorded by Home Office Officers and social workers in relation to the applicant’s demeanour and interactions with others due to the short period and artificial context in which he was observed. However, I am prepared to attach some weight to the lead assessor’s opinion regarding the applicant’s appearance in view of her experience in age assessing young people from the applicant’s country, but I do remind myself that evidence of physical appearance is rarely a reliable method by which to gauge a person’s age and that the applicant’s witnesses have all been prepared to accept the applicant’s claimed age based in part, it would seem, on his appearance. I also place weight of the observations of the Home Office Officers and age assessors who, at separate interviews, and presumably from a relatively close distance, observed signs of shaving despite the applicant claiming he had never shaved. The BEF specifically noted that there were signs of the applicant shaving down to his neck. The applicant’s claim that he has never shaved is hard to reconcile with my observation that his facial hair has seemingly not grown at all in the past year.
Conclusions
118. The credibility of an applicant is “highly material, if not fundamental, to the fair and proper assessment of his age” (R (K) v Birmingham City Council [2011] EWHC 1559 (Admin), Owen J at [77]). This is a case where I have found significant concerns regarding the credibility and veracity of the applicant.
119. I take into account the fact that young people may lie for reasons unrelated to age but related to their claims for protection or the reasons they had to leave their country of origin. I also take into account the fact that when he was first questioned by Home Office Officers, the applicant had endured a difficult journey from his home country, even if this were not for the four and a half year period he maintains.
120. However, the matters on which I have found the applicant to have been inconsistent and untruthful did not relate to the core of his asylum claim but relate to his claim to be a child.
121. After careful consideration, I find it more likely than not that the applicant arrived in the UK as a young adult in his early twenties. I find that the applicant has made a conscientious effort to mislead the authorities in order to secure the perceived benefits from being an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child.
122. I also find in this case, on balance, that it is possible to be exact about the applicant’s likely age. For two of the applicant’s social media accounts, which he opened before he came to the UK, he provided a date of birth of 26 May 2002. The applicant would have been required to manually input this date of birth. I accept that he may have only manually provided this date of birth on one occasion for one account, given that Facebook and Instagram are linked and it is likely that one account generates the biographical details for the other if they are connected in the same Meta Accounts Centre. Although the applicant claims that this date of birth was simply chosen at random, it is a date which makes him of an age which is broadly consistent with the Home Office initial assessment of age and the BEF. It is also consistent with the applicant’s initial response when interviewed on arrival that he left school aged 17 years of age. A birthday of 26 May is also consistent with Facebook friends wishing him happy birthday on 26/27 May and the applicant “liking” the posts, as well as the previous Instagram bio in which the applicant had manually added the word “Gemini” and the symbol for this zodiac sign. I find the applicant removed this detail from his bio before permitting his solicitor to search his phone for social media content because it was not consistent with his claim to have been born on 21 February 2008 (or indeed 22 March 2008). Although the date of birth provided on the applicant’s TikTok account is different, unlike his other social media accounts, this account was created after the applicant had arrived in the UK when he knew his age was disputed by the UK authorities. It is possible that he provided a different, and incorrect, date of birth to provide him with the opportunity to assert that all of the dates provided in his social media accounts were chosen at random.
123. Drawing my findings together, I find, to the balance of probabilities, that the applicant was born on 26 May 2002 so that when he arrived in the UK, he was 22 years old.
124. I find the following:
◦ The applicant was born on 26 May 2002.
◦ The applicant was aged 22 years and 11 months at the date of the respondent’s assessment (the BEF) conducted on 23 April 2025.
◦ The applicant was aged 23 years and 9 months at the date of the hearing.
◦ The applicant is presently aged 23.
Summary of decision
125. It is declared that the applicant’s date of birth is 26 May 2002.

~~~~0~~~~

Postscript: On 18 March 2026, in response to my draft judgment and order, I received a written request from the respondent’s representative seeking an order permitting disclosure of this judgment and related papers to the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”). The applicant resists disclosure on the basis that my decision is solely in relation to the applicant’s age and date of birth and because the SSHD was not an interested party in these proceedings. I see no good reason to not permit disclosure in the terms sought. The SSHD will be aware of the purpose of my judgment and its limitations. The judgment will be available publicly on the gov.uk Tribunal Decisions website. Although I have maintained the anonymity order made by the Administrative Court this was because the applicant is an asylum seeker (rather than a child); a matter which will now be determined by the SSHD in the first instance.