A Sudanese migrant thought to be 25 because he has “deep forehead wrinkles” has won an immigration case after an asylum judge ruled he was actually 17. The migrant was assessed as being 25 when he arrived via a small boat because he has a “weathered” face, a beard, a “well-developed jaw line and cheek bones”.

Despite the migrant claiming he was only 17, officials in Britain said he must be an adult because he has a “protruding Adam’s apple”, old acne scars, and sunken eyes. Known only as “ASB”, the asylum seeker maintained that he was 17 and provided evidence including his TikTok and Facebook accounts.

Now, a judge from the Immigration and Asylum Chamber has sided with the Sudanese migrant and said he was in fact only 17 when he entered Britain. He will now be treated as a child in any future hearings about his asylum status.

ASB arrived in the UK on a small boat and claimed asylum in February 2025. Despite claiming to be born in 2008, the Home Office judged that his probably age was 23 and they judged his date of birth to be July 1, 2001.

He claimed however to be 16 and to born on July 1, 2008. He said he has two uncles living in the UK and another cousin – with whom he had been speaking with when he was in Calais. He underwent an Initial Age Assessment with Liverpool City Council, which said that he was a ‘clear and obvious adult’ and aged between 23-25.

The age assessment said: “He has a well-developed jaw line and cheek bones, he has a prominent and protruding Adam’s apple and lines across the neck, he has facial hair on the upper lip and chin.

“He has old acne scarring on the face, His eyes are sunken into his head and has dark circles under the eyes. He has deep forehead wrinkles and smile lines. There are signs of weathering on the face showing a change in skin tone.

“He has broad shoulders going past the waist and large hands. [ASB] has a confident demeanour and makes eye contact with both officers when being interviewed. He answered questioning in an assured manner.”

It concluded that: “I am fully satisfied that he is significantly over the age of 18.”

A second assessment added: “[ASB] appears to be 5ft 7 inches tall and is of a slim build. He has dark black afro hair that is long at the top and short on the sides.

“[ASB] was observed to have facial hair around his chin area and upper lip. [ASB] was asked if he shaved, he said he did not, however a shaving shadow could be observed.

“[ASB] had a visible Adam’s apple, deep forehead lines and prominent lines on his face and neck which can be attributed to adult maturity.

“He did not present as a teenager would in a stressful situation, for example struggling to maintain eye contact or fidgeting.”

At one point during the assessment ASB raised his voice and appeared to argue with the interpreter.

The case was taken for judicial review in April 2025 and ASB was given the right to challenge the decision to treat him as an adult in June 2025. ASB showed his Facebook account – which said he was born in July 2008. He also showed that he had opened a TikTok account in December 2024.

His cousin gave evidence saying that they used to spend time together in a village and visit their grandmother in the holidays. Upper Tribunal Judge Paul Lodato has now decided that the evidence was ‘compelling’ and decided that he was born in July 2008 – meaning he will be treated as a child in the future.

Judge Lodato said: “During the initial age assessment, he provided a date of birth of 1 July 2008 and further indicated that he left Sudan in 2021 at the age of 14. These dates did not tally with him being 14 in 2021 as he would, in fact, have turned from 12 to 13 years of age in July 2021.

“This struck me an overly fine-margins analysis which did not materially undermine [ASB’s] credibility.

“There seemed to me to be no obvious reason why [ASB] would have unerringly registered his exact age at the point of his departure from Sudan, which, on any view, would have been a time of great stress leaving his family and all he had known until then behind for an uncertain and precarious journey.

“I was also troubled by the lack of certainty [ASB] expressed about precisely when he left the country “I am not satisfied that [ASB’s] evidence was in any way inconsistent about how he came to know of his age or date of birth.

“It was suggested that there was some tension in his claim to have first learned of his age around the time he first went to school. I could discern no such tension.

“[ASB] described having a concept of the passage of time because years were marked by occasions such as the New Year, the birth of The Prophet and Independence Day.

“This had the ring of truth as being markers drawn from memory. The concerns I have about the overly subjective approach adopted in the age assessment process is exemplified by the following remark ‘He did not present as a teenager would in a stressful situation, for example struggling to maintain eye contact or fidgeting’.

“Firstly, there is simply nothing to underpin the notion that this is how a teenager might be reasonably expected to behave in this situation.

“Even if some teenagers might be deferential under questioning by figures of authority, it cannot be a safe conclusion that all, or most, teenagers will behave in that way.

“This would be an overly simplistic stereotype of teenage behaviour shorn of any statistical or empirical baseline.

“When I step back and assess the overall evidential picture, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that [ASB] is the age he claims to be and is a child.”