An Afghan asylum seeker who was wrongly judged as an adult because of his “protruding Adam’s apple” has won a £25,000 payout after a tribunal found that the local council’s age assessment was deeply flawed and unfair. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) ruled that the boy, known only as EXJ, was 17 years old when he arrived in the UK, not in his 20s as officials initially claimed.
The tribunal, led by Judge Abid Mahmood, overturned St Helens Borough Council’s decision, describing the council’s assessment process as “procedurally unfair and substantively flawed.” The ruling criticized the use of physical appearance, particularly the Adam’s apple, as a reliable measure of age. Judge Mahmood stressed that such traits develop differently among individuals and “add very little” to any credible age determination.
EXJ arrived in Britain in late 2023 after a long and dangerous journey through Iran and Turkey, fleeing Taliban threats linked to his father’s police work. When he first met UK immigration officials, he mistakenly gave his birth year as 2005, which he later explained was due to exhaustion, malnutrition, and unfamiliarity with the Gregorian calendar, as his rural Pashtun village followed a lunar system and did not celebrate birthdays.
In June 2024, social workers from St Helens Council conducted two interviews with him and concluded he was an adult, relying mainly on his physical build, facial lines, and a visible Adam’s apple. They did not seek medical input or issue a “minded-to” notice, which would have allowed him to respond to their findings — a breach of the 2003 Merton guidelines that require fair and evidence-based age assessments.
During the tribunal hearing, witnesses described EXJ as having the behaviour and emotions of a teenager. A support worker said he spent his time playing video games, watching cartoons, and reacting emotionally when talking about family. Two independent social workers from The Vision agency observed that he was illiterate in his native languages, impulsive in his decisions, and often deferred to authority — all signs of youth and immaturity.
Judge Mahmood ruled that the council had ignored essential safeguards under the Children Act and failed to provide a fair process, including using interpreters inconsistently and not recording interviews. The tribunal concluded that EXJ should have been classified as under 18 at the time, granting him access to child protection services, education, and housing support.
The ruling awarded a £25,000 interim payment to cover his legal fees, with the final amount to be reviewed later. St Helens Council declined to comment on the decision.
Refugee advocates have welcomed the judgment as a reminder of the need for careful and humane treatment of young asylum seekers. They argue that reliance on physical traits like Adam’s apples or body size often leads to harmful mistakes that can strip vulnerable youths of vital protection.
The case highlights the ongoing challenge for UK authorities in verifying the ages of the more than 30,000 people who crossed the English Channel in 2025, many of whom claim to be unaccompanied minors. As EXJ now turns 18, his legal team at Luke & Bridger Law says the ruling restores fairness to a flawed system and ensures that future assessments follow proper standards.