Afghan Migrant Who Arrived in UK With “Protruding Adam’s Apple” Wins £25,000 After Judge Rules He Was a Child
An Afghan migrant who was deemed an adult by UK authorities because he had a “protruding Adam’s apple”, bags under his eyes and skin that “did not appear youthful” has won £25,000 after an asylum judge ruled he was a child at the time. The Mail has more.
The migrant – who came to Britain on a small boat – was awarded the payout after an immigration judge ruled that officials were wrong to conclude he was over 18.
The Afghan had a large Adam’s apple, bags under his eyes and skin that “did not appear youthful”, a tribunal heard.
Official age assessors at St Helens Borough Council in Merseyside concluded he was therefore aged between 23 and 25 when he arrived.
But the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber has overturned that decision, ruling that the authorities had relied on “pseudoscientific indicators”.
The Upper Tribunal said the date of birth the Afghan gave was correct and found that he was 17 upon his arrival.
He was awarded £25,000 to cover his publicly-funded legal costs after winning his appeal.
The Upper Tribunal heard that the man, from an unnamed village in Afghanistan, told the Home Office he was born in 2005 when he arrived in the UK.
Age assessors at St Helens Borough Council found that the asylum seeker was aged between 23 and 25 in July 2024, disputing the date of birth he later claimed which was January 5th 2007.
This would make him a child when he arrived in the country.
The Upper Tribunal heard he told council assessors “he was stressed and confused” when he came to the UK and did not know what he was pointing to when he pointed at a date of birth of May 25th 2005 on arrival. …
The assessors found: “The [migrant]’s skin did not appear youthful. The [migrant] has established lines within features of his face that are common with maturity.
“The [migrant] had bagginess in the upper and lower eye lined and bags. The [migrant]’s face also features established lines each side of his eyes, the nose to the corners of the mouth.
“The [migrant] also has a protruding Adam’s apple and an established line on his neck that run from left to right. The [migrant]’s facial structure appears fully developed.
“These features are consistent with a person who has exceed maturity, and more common with an adult and less likely features of a child under the age of 18 years.
“However, it is acknowledged that the [migrant]’s life in Afghanistan and journey to the UK could have had an impact on his physical development.”
They added that his “physical appearance and demeanour does not appear consistent with a person who has only recently commenced puberty”. …
At the judicial review held by the Upper Tribunal, Upper Tribunal Judge Abid Mahmood criticised the age assessment for relying on the migrant’s Adam’s apple as an indicator of his age, saying “an Adam’s apple adds very little in assessing whether [he] was above the age of 18”.
He added: “I did not observe lines on [his] face.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
So Upper Tribunal Judge Abid Mahmood is capable of deciding the age of an illegal immigrant. What a clever fellow he is.
Doesn’t use pseudoscience, you see – just Islamic intuition.
A dentist can determine anyone’s exact age, no need for a guess by an unqualified judge,
Question of principle – under no circumstances should taxpayers be on the hook for these illegals’ legal bills.
Just f#@k right off.
Mahmood, Mahmood…hm… Where have we heard that name before?
Isn’t that the name of the Pakistani Muslim woman born in Pakistan, celebrated in Pakistan by fellow Pakistani Muslims, saying her Pakistani Muslim faith is more important to her than anything else, a Pakistani Muslim Activist campaigning politically for Muslims pretending to be children to help them falsely claim asylum, complaining about Racist British White Men, even though White Men have placed her in charge of the British Home Office thousands of miles away from her native Muslim Pakistan, as well as controlling the British police & Muslim Pakistani Criminal Prisoners in British prisons, as well as controlling decisions on Muslim immigration to Britain from Muslim countries like Pakistan & Afghanistan, as well as being UK Lord Chancellor…because… because… no Indigenous Brit could be found?
Isn’t it strange how so many Muslim men find it so difficult to recognise someone is a child when it’s female … particularly if the female child is white.
But they are highly capable of recognising that a man in his 20s is definitely a child when it comes to them migrating here illegally and especially when it involves handing them a shedload of our money.
The “Judges” faith and ethnicity obviously had absolutely no impact on his ruling whatsoever …. natch. Move along (and pay up).
He was awarded £25,000 to cover his publicly-funded legal costs after winning his appeal.
National suicide summed up in a single sentence.
“Upper Tribunal Judge Abid Mahmood…”
Aaaaand there it is.
I have posted the same. Did not read comments first.
“However, it is acknowledged that the [migrant]’s life in Afghanistan and journey to the UK could have had an impact on his physical development.”
That is not the UK’s responsibility or fault. We did not make him make that journey. The Afghans had 20 or so years of US led assistance to get rid of the Taliban and join the modern World but chose to remain undeveloped. When the allies came ashore in France the French resistance swung into action to assist in expelling the Nazis so that France was liberated within months.
The Germans and Japanese quickly learnt that it was best to work with the US/Allies to rebuild there countries and establish economically successful democratic societies. Japan is mostly rugged mountains so they could of kept an insurgency going for decades especially if the Soviets changed sides and started supply them with weapons to fight the evil capitalist Americans. It’s a shame Muslims lack the common sense to work with non Muslims, it was the same in Iraq.
Many ex-Muslims and migrants who fled majority Muslim lands ( due to them being apostates, minority religions, gay etc ) speaking up about their concern across Europe. They’ve left oppressive countries such as Yemen, Pakistan and Iran, settled and integrated into their adoptive countries only to find they’re having to oppose the very same ideology that they managed to escape from; ”It feels a bit frustrating that I ended my brief forced stint in Pakistan because I couldn’t speak about the truths of Islam for fear of something bad being done to me, to now finding myself in the same situation in Britain after being here for over 15 years. This was supposed to be the free and sensible country. I can’t write my book on Islam. Well, I can. But the consequences will involve me losing my job and probably meeting a worse fate at the hands of Islamists with our inept police force playing around with DEI nonsense, bending over to Islam at every opportunity. There is no political party that is willing to take the problem of Islam head-on. They will only go as far as Islamism. Is Advance UK willing to do it? Time will tell.… Read more »
This is the problem when you import Islam, a hostile religion and political ideology that is highly incompatible with Western culture and values. Although some will no doubt have integrated, the risk is just too great ( far too late now, of course ) and it’s best to just ban the lot of them. I feel the majority of Muslims will always have loyalty to the Ummah above all else. The evidence for this is all around us. ”When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” M. Angelou;
”The concept of the Ummah has undermined the idea of the nation-state and stood in opposition to patriotism. Many Muslims in the Middle East view their modern states as artificial creations imposed by the West—especially through the Sykes-Picot Agreement. They see the Muslim Ummah as a single entity that transcends borders and national divisions. As a result, an Egyptian Muslim may feel more inclined to defend a Palestinian Muslim than his own Coptic Christian compatriot, because loyalty to the Ummah outweighs loyalty to the nation.”
https://x.com/BrotherRasheed/status/1978155110287962334
“At the judicial review held by the Upper Tribunal, Upper Tribunal Judge Abid Mahmood …”
All the explanation that is required.
The madness never ends.
There’s tests such as CAT or other types of scans that can be done to work out someone’s age by looking at bone and teeth development. According to human rights lawyers it infringes on someone’s human rights to make them take these tests so they’re never used because obviously someone who’s lying about their age isn’t going to voluntarily take these tests.
It infringes my human rights to pay for this stuff, but of course I don’t matter being a middle aged white male.
The Human Rights lawyers are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Let the ‘Judge’ pay.
Judge Abid Mahmood. 😁
Is this right?
The taxpayer paid for his legal costs, to the tune of £25K.
And then the taxpayer gives him £25K.
So cost to the taxpayer of £50K?
Excellent point. It gives new meaning to the term “Islamic Finance”.
So where did this poor and destitute “child” find the thousands of euros to pay the ferrymen?
Are there not any procedures whereby this judgement can be challenged? If not then the assumption must be Judges can never be challenged and I don’t think this is the case. Also, for a muslim to sit in judgment of another muslim when the case depends on evidence from non muslims is doomed to fail.
I’ve been saying it for a long time – change won’t come through the ballot box. It’s pitchfork, hue and cry time…
In other words, it’s civil war time. Start with politicians, then civil service and judiciary.
How about abolishing the judiciary first, since they really are the root of the problem, and society can function perfectly well without them. Give them all early retirement, on only a state pension, all their other assets confiscated to pay for mass repatriation flights and container ship voyages, including the many among them who are from the Third World. That seems fair to me.
At the start of the year there were 3-400 gypsies living in Ballymena. One, or more of them raped or sexually assaulted at least one Irish girl. The locals rioted, set fire to quite a few gypsy homes and within 2-3 weeks all the gypsies had left.
If Starmer can’t or won’t keep them out we might need to burn them out.
Send spare petrol and matches to
PO Box 4271
Inverness
IV1 4HM
A bloke who couldn’t even point out his DOB on a calendar had the nous to be able to take the Home Office to court? Did Rabid Mahmood also rule that he could stay here too?
‘He was awarded £25,000 to cover his publicly-funded legal costs after winning his appeal.’
Does that mean the £25k from the tax-payers pot that funded his legal defence will now be reimbursed…by the £25k award from another tax-payers pot?
‘He added: “I did not observe lines on [his] face.”’
Hmm, I believe there is a much vaunted Specsavers at Barnard Castle, m’lud!
Tbf: when people say “child migrant” an image of a nine year old is conjured in the imagination, not someone old enough to enlist.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the age when a migrant is considered a child should be adjusted down a bit to an age where puberty is unlikely to have commenced for a male. And it should be codified in law that the markers of puberty such as an adam’s apple are sufficient for disqualification for treatment as a child.
The fact that we are having to assess illegal migrants on appearance alone is utterly ridiculous. There should be a formal medical assessment via a dentist or a quick x-ray to the elbow which can provide a legal standard of assessment.
In addition we should take fingerprints, photographs and DNA as they have broken the law entering the country illegally. There are Road Traffic offences that require these biometric measures to be recorded. Why not for a more serious offence of entering Britain illegally. Do we have to wait before they commit even more offences before we apply the same legal standards as we do to everyone else?
Just going abroad on a holiday requires entrants now to be finger-printed and such like but illegals get to skip all that.