Upper Tribunal overturns decision of National Age Assessment Board in age assessment dispute

The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) has ruled that our client, NAN, an unaccompanied asylum seeking child from Afghanistan was 16 years old. The decision overturns an earlier age assessment by the National Age Assessment Board (NAAB), which had assessed him to be an adult with a date of birth of 1 January 2004.

Background

The applicant and his older brother left Afghanistan after the collapse of the government. The applicant’s brother, SA, arrived in 2023. Due to an error, NAN was recorded in SA’s documents as being the older brother. In spite of persistent efforts by SA to correct the error, his records were not amended so when NAN arrived in March 2024 he was assessed as being 20 years old by NAAB. The social workers who assessed NAN also failed to recognise that he had been a victim of modern slavery during his journey to the UK. NAN was able to obtain a copy of his Tazkira through his oldest brother, who had fled to Dubai. NAAB refused to accept the Tazkira as new evidence, as it was an electronic copy.

NAN issued judicial review proceedings in the High Court in December 2025, and permission was granted in June 2025. A separate preliminary hearing dealt with the issue of Respondent and the correct venue for issuing in challenges against NAAB. In June 2025, NAN was granted permission to pursue his claim, and his case transferred to the Upper Tribunal for a fact finding hearing.

Evidence Considered by the Tribunal

The fact finding hearing was held on 14 and 15 April 2026, before Judge O’Brien in the Upper Tribunal.  Judge O’Brien heard evidence from NAN, his brother SA, his English language teacher, and expert Dr Antonio Giustozzi. Judge O’Brien found that the records completed by SA’s social worker that had recorded NAN being younger than SA were not reliable and did not accurately reflect the brother’s evidence about the family’s ages.

NAN also relied on a evidence from Dr Giustozzi, who was able to verify his Tazkira, using a researcher based in Afghanistan who was able to check central records in Kabul and confirm that the copy of NAN’s Tazkira is genuine. Dr Giustozzi prepared an expert report and gave evidence in court.

Key Findings

In his judgment, Judge O’Brien emphasised that age assessment cases require a holistic evaluation of all available evidence and that appearance and demeanour alone are unreliable indicators of age. The Tribunal found that the applicant’s account had remained broadly consistent and was supported by corroborative evidence from his brother. He raised concerns about the assessing social workers for their over reliance on physical appearance and demeanour, and for making judgments about how young Afghan boys should be behaving. Judge O’Brien also relied on the expert evidence of Dr Giustozzi, in coming to the conclusion that the copy of NAN’s Tazkira was genuine.

Outcome

Having considered all the evidence, the Tribunal concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the applicant’s date of birth is 29 February 2008 and that he was therefore 16 years old when he arrived in the United Kingdom on 3 March 2024.

The judgment confirms that the applicant should be recognised as having been a child at the time of arrival and provides important guidance on the assessment of disputed age cases, particularly where documentary evidence and family testimony are available.

NAN was represented by Gimhani Eriyagolla and Jessica Robinson of the Public Law and Human Rights Team, and Eva Doerr of Garden Court Chambers.

‍