Eritrean migrant who had a protruding Adam's apple and five o'clock shadow is a child, court rules

By WILL HALLOWELL, NEWS REPORTER Published: 21:15, 20 July 2026 | Updated: 21:16, 20 July 2026 An Eritrean migrant who had a protruding Adam's apple and five o'clock shadow is a child, a court has ruled.  The man, who has not been named, changed his date of birth five times and was stopped from entering Britain on several occasions.  But he eventually smuggled himself into the country by hiding in the back of an HGV in February 2024. Immigration officials believed he was much older than 18 because of his 'appearance and demeanour'. He was assessed by officials to be an adult based on his 'inconsistent' dates of birth and his 'protruding Adam's apple, wrinkles under his eyes, and a five o'clock shadow'.  This would mean the Eritrean national was 'not entitled to any of the statutory benefits' of being a child. However, an immigration hearing in Hillingdon, in outer London, has now ruled he was a child when he entered the UK, with an asylum judge ruling the man was 16 when he arrived. The Home Office has been ordered to pay the migrant, now 19, £10,000 in legal costs. UK Border Force officials believed the Eritrean man was much older than 18 because of his 'appearance and demeanour' - but an immigration judge has ruled he was a child when he entered Britain in February 2024  He had lived in Eritrea with his mother but after she died he was taken to Libya, where he was trafficked. He travelled across Europe and in February 2024 he made an attempt to enter the UK in the back of a lorry. The man was apprehended at the port of Dunkirk inside the area controlled by UK Border Force around the Channel Tunnel and he was refused entry to the country on this occasion. When he was questioned, he gave a different name and told officers that he was born in February 2005. Three days later, he was apprehended again in the back of a lorry at the same port and he gave his name as BSB, and it was recorded that his date of birth was February 2006. A month later, he entered Britain in the back of a lorry at Folkestone and claimed asylum. He told officers that his date of birth was April 2007, but it was noted next to this that he had been 'age assessed as 14 April 1996'. In later age assessments, the Eritrean said his date of birth was April 2007 and he maintained this during the tribunal. During his age assessments, it was noted that he 'has provided five different dates of birth to various professionals, none of which align with the age he currently claims'. The assessors also noted his appearance played a part in their decision to deem him an adult. They said that the photographs from Dunkirk taken three days apart show there was a 'noticeable increase in beard growth'. They also noted in the photos that he had 'visible red spots and dark marks consistent with recent shaving, a noticeable Adam's apple, and a fine moustache'. Home Office officials said he had a 'protruding Adam's apple, wrinkles under his eyes, and a five o'clock shadow', the latter meaning a dark appearance on a man's chin and face caused by slight beard growth since he shaved in the morning. While giving evidence at the tribunal, the migrant showed his avatar on social media. On both Snapchat and TikTok these avatars had 'proper beards'. Upper Tribunal Judge Gaenor Bruce said that despite his appearance, his demeanour was 'sincere' and 'co-operative' and that looking at someone's physical development is unreliable. He said: 'I have given careful consideration to the evidence about the applicant's appearance. 'I do not agree that he has a receding hairline, or deep lines in his face. I could not say whether the Adam's apple of someone born in 2007 is likely to be significantly less pronounced than someone born in 2005. 'I do accept that the applicant has a small neat beard, and one that he sports quite proudly. He has used it as his Snapchat avatar, and came to court with it clearly groomed. 'He told me he likes his beard and that is quite plainly the case. The rate of growth of facial hair in Eritrean males was not something about which I received specialist expert evidence. 'I am asked to find that applying common sense, it is a marker of adulthood. 'I am simply unable to do that, because I know from my own experience - of my own children and their friends, of the many law students that I work with - that children mature at wildly different rates and it is entirely possible for boys as young as 15 to have fully established facial hair. 'Given the very small margin of the dispute between the parties I was in the end unable to derive very much assistance from the applicant's appearance.' Judge Bruce ruled that he was 16 years old when he entered the UK and that he should have been treated as a child.