More than 30,000 people have crossed the English Channel illegally so far in 2025 (Image: Getty)
An Afghan asylum seeker, whose “protruding Adam’s apple” led to an initial adult classification, is in fact a 17-year-old boy, a tribunal has ruled, overturning a local council’s assessment and forcing a £25,000 payout for his legal fees. In a decision which highlights the difficulties of using physical traits to gauge age in migrant cases, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) quashed St Helens Borough Council’s July 2024 finding that the claimant — anonymised as EXJ — was between 23 and 25 years of age.
Upper Tribunal Judge Abid Mahmood set EXJ’s birthdate as January 5, 2007, meaning he was a minor when he crossed the Channel by small boat in late 2023, escaping Taliban threats connected to his father’s police work. The three-day hearing at Field House in July exposed the council’s process as “procedurally unfair and substantively flawed,” with Mr Mahmood dismissing reliance on “pseudoscientific” indicators like the Adam’s apple as unreliable guesswork.
Read more: ‘Starmer hasn’t solved UK’s biggest problem so millions are turning to 1 man’
Read more: Taxpayers to ‘fork out £60m’ so small boat migrants can get private health care
The judge noted that such features typically develop by age 13 and vary widely among individuals, adding “very little” to age determinations without medical evidence.
EXJ arrived dishevelled after a gruelling route through Iran and Turkey, initially giving Home Office officials a 2005 birthdate. He later attributed the error to exhaustion, malnutrition, and ignorance of the Gregorian calendar — his Pashtun village in Helmand province used a lunar system, and birthdays were not marked.
Social workers Billy Ireland and Nicola Kearns, in two June 2024 interviews, pegged him as an adult based on his “fully developed” build: a prominent Adam’s apple, facial lines, under-eye bags, and overall physique suggesting puberty was long past.
They assigned a notional 2001 birthdate and housed him accordingly, without seeking a doctor’s opinion, despite guidance calling for comprehensive checks.
The Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber (Image: Google Streetview)
Mr Mahmood’s ruling leaned on the 2003 Merton benchmark, which demands “the best evidence” through interviews and observation, not superficial scans.
He found no facial lines on EXJ during the hearing and faulted the council for skipping a “minded-to” notice, which would have let the claimant respond, and for holding feedback without a suitable adult or proper interpreter.
Witnesses backed EXJ’s account, though the judge weighed their input against the council’s report.
Olga Nesmejanowa, a support worker at Banner House accommodation, described his routines: watching cartoons, playing with toys and video games, avoiding new foods, and showing emotional responses to family mentions.
He reportedly stuck to 16- to 18-year-olds in group settings.
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
Carly Quinn and Ashley Barrow, independent social workers from The Vision, noted his illiteracy in Pashto and Dari, impulsive decisions, and compliance with rules — traits they linked to adolescence. Friend Awais Khan, 19, said EXJ shared his interests in football and music, appearing no older than a younger sibling.
Under special measures — breaks every 40 minutes and straightforward questions — EXJ testified about village life: goat herding, basic Quran lessons, no schooling, and Taliban attacks on relatives.
He held steady under cross-examination from council counsel Lee Parkhill, despite evident discomfort.
A statement from his mother confirmed the 2007 date, but Mr Mahmood criticised the council for not pursuing family verification earlier and ignoring trauma’s potential to skew development, adding: “Different people mature physically and psychologically at different rates.”
The process also violated guidelines: no videoed interviews, spotty interpreter use, and no pre-assessment outreach. These denied EXJ a fair shot at challenging the verdict, breaching Children Act protections for at-risk youth.
St Helens must now classify EXJ as under 18 for the relevant period, granting access to child services, schooling, and asylum perks — distinct from his separate Home Office application, which had tentatively rejected minor status.
The £25,000 interim costs payment, due September 15, covers his publicly funded lawyers; full amounts await review. Appeal permission was refused.
The case spotlights strains in verifying ages for the 30,000-plus small boat arrivals last year, many claiming unaccompanied minor status. Refugee advocates see it as a procedural safeguard; local authorities point to stretched budgets. St Helens offered no comment.
EXJ, who turned 18 this year, now faces a fresh evaluation. His solicitor at Luke & Bridger Law termed it a procedural fix after a disputed probe.