top of page
Search

Born Yesterday? Age assessment of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the UK

  • Writer: Simon Cook
    Simon Cook
  • Jan 31, 2024
  • 8 min read

Updated: Feb 1, 2024

Summary

Whilst problematic, age assessment of asylum applicants claiming to be minors is crucial to ensure the welfare of children.  The UK’s current approach is more ethical than most European countries, largely due to upheld legal challenges.  The Nationality and Borders Bill is set to change this, creating new challenges whilst seeking to rectify existing shortcomings.


Introduction

Between 2010-2021 there have been 341,864 asylum applications lodged in the UK (Home Office 2022a).  Some asylum applicants are lone individuals and of these, some are adults (aged 18 and over) and some are children (under the age of 18).  Children seeking asylum in the UK without a responsible adult / guardian present are called ‘unaccompanied asylum-seeking children’ (UASC).  The way that asylum claims are processed and the statutory support provided differs depending on whether the applicant is recognised as an adult or a child.  Those deemed to be children receive more favourable treatment than those determined to be adults.


Some people who are aged 18 and over may claim to be a child either because they do not know their chronological age or because they intend to mislead.  If an asylum applicant claims to be under the age of 18 and there is any doubt about this from the government, they become ‘age disputed’.  To determine an applicant’s actual age, an age assessment process is required.  Claimants should be given the benefit of the doubt and treated as a child until the age assessment process is concluded (Home Office 2022b).  Between 2010-2021, there were 29,411 UASC applications (those treated as UASC for at least one day).  This amounts to 8.6% of all asylum applications during this period (Home Office 2022a).


However, determining a person’s chronological age is notoriously complex, with no singular method proving definitively accurate (EASO 2018).  Ethnicity, socioeconomic background, culture and trauma all have a major bearing on people’s appearance and demeanour.  There are also many ethical and practical considerations about the methods and assessors involved, and the implications of the decision.  Between 2010-2021, there were 9,361 age dispute cases (32% of all UASC cases).  Of the disputed cases resolved during this period, 48% were determined to be less than 18 years old (Home Office 2022a).


Why Is Age Important?


Safeguarding

If chronological age is wrongly determined, an adult may be wrongfully placed in a care and support setting with children.  Alternatively, a child may be wrongfully placed in a setting with adults.  Both scenarios pose a substantial risk of harm, abuse and neglect to the children affected.  Children who are accommodated and supported alongside a wrongfully assessed adult are being exposed to potential harm and abuse.  A child incorrectly determined to be an adult experiences harm and neglect, as they are accommodated alongside adults whilst lacking the necessary wrap-around support (Refugee Council 2019).


Justice

The processing of asylum claims for children differs from the adult process due to their specific needs (Home Office 2022b).  If chronological age is wrongly determined, a child loses access to these enhanced protections which would be significantly detrimental to their asylum claim and expose them to harm.  Conversely, an adult whose age is wrongly determined would have their case processed and assessed unjustly and more favourably.  The asylum process for children includes the following modifications (Home Office 2022b);

  • A shorter, simplified registration process.

  • A ‘responsible adult’, independent of the Home Office, present for interviews.

  • Greater entitlement to free legal representation.

  • A more sensitive and considerate manner of questioning during interviews.

  • Greater consideration of applicant’s background and circumstances.

  • Greater leniency and benefit of the doubt regarding credibility.

  • Greater weight given to evidence from external sources / other professionals.

  • Involvement of staff with specialist training.

  • Usual award of temporary protection through grant of ‘UASC Leave’ until age 17½ which prevents removal from the UK.

  • A child should not be detained.


Support

The statutory support and access to services differ greatly for adult and child asylum claimants.  If a child applying for asylum is incorrectly age assessed, they lose access to the following support notionally provided to those recognised as UASC (Coram CLC 2017);

  • Adult supervision and guidance from a local authority social worker / personal adviser.

  • Access to independent advocates.

  • Supported accommodation.

  • Greater financial support.

  • Access to full-time education.

There are also significant risks associated with inappropriate provision of healthcare interventions due to incorrectly assessed age.




Available Methods (EASO 2018)

Method

Strengths

Weaknesses

Further assessment of evidence - review of all available documentation to infer age.

Non-invasive and therefore ethically unproblematic.


Official documents offer strong evidence in support of age.


Many claimants don’t have such documents due to the nature of their departure and journey.


Claimant and / or their family may be at risk from any attempt to retrieve such documents.


Age assessment interview - assessors are usually asylum / migration officials.


Non-invasive (physically).


Claimant actively involved in process with their perspective taken into account.


Can also be used to inform needs-assessment.


Significant variation in results.


Subjective, lacking empirical evidence of accuracy.


Psychosocial assessment - experts in child psychology / development assess mental maturity.


Non-invasive (physically).


Considers claimant’s experiences and maturity.


Claimant actively involved in process with their perspective taken into account.


Can also be used to inform needs-assessment.


Significant variation in results when used alone.


Subjective, lacking empirical evidence of accuracy.


Psychologically invasive and re-traumatising when involving recollection of trauma.

Dental observation - visual examination of teeth by dentist to ascertain maturity in relation to established data.



No radiation used, just observation.


Ethnic background and nutrition levels do not affect tooth mineralisation.


Does not confirm chronological age, merely whether development is in line with averages.


Sole indicators of adulthood (third molars) appear between 15-23 years old.


Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) - assessment of bone fusion in hand / wrist / knee / clavicle.


No radiation used.


Recognised as scientifically sound, with empirical evidence of accuracy. 


Several measures of development can be observed from one procedure.


Costly apparatus and highly skilled operators necessary.


Lengthy procedure requiring subject to be stationary so not suitable for all claimants.


Unsuitable for those with metal implants / fragments (more likely for those from conflict-affected areas).


Physical development assessment - reference value comparison.  May involve sexual maturity assessment.


May reveal conditions which would affect maturation rate.


If paediatricians are the assessors, claimant’s physical health is considered.


Physically and psychologically invasive / re-traumatising, especially for abuse survivors.


Intrusive intimate examinations breach claimants’ human rights.  EASO recommend no use of methods ‘implying nudity or the examination of genitalia’ (EASO 2018).


Insufficient account given to variations of ethnicity, nutrition, poverty.


Least accurate method.


X-ray - assessment of bone fusion in hand / wrist / clavicle, pelvic bone position and dental development


Empirical evidence of accuracy. 


Margin of error determined and recorded as standard.


Cheap, easily accessible apparatus, rapid procedure.

Physically invasive (uses radiation).


Ethical problem of radiology used without medical benefit.


Disregards psychological development of claimant.


Currently, in the UK, only non-medical methods of age assessment are used, including; further assessment of evidence documents, age assessment interview by immigration officials (including estimations based on physical appearance), and psychosocial assessment by two qualified social workers.  Home Office officials may dispute a young person’s claimed age either due to clear documentation or assessment by two members of staff that the claimant’s ‘physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggests that they are significantly over 18 years of age’ (Home Office 2022b).  There is no comprehensively mandated method of social workers’ age assessments, however, guidance was set out in the case of R (B) v Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin), including;

  • Not solely based on appearance but considering demeanour and personal history.

  • Consideration of claimant’s health, familial and social background.

  • Claimant given chance to address important issues which may negatively impact their case.


Evaluation of Current Policy

Strengths

  1. Benefit of the doubt given to claimants throughout age disputes.  Important due to disproportionate harm to children treated as adults (ADCS 2015).

  2. Local authorities provide ongoing supervision of adults wrongfully assessed as children, providing many opportunities to review and correct errors.

  3. In line with Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), the holistic best interests of the child are prioritised in the age assessment process.

  4. Non-use of medical methods in line with British Dental Association (BDA 2021) and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH 2022) position (due to inaccuracy and ethical implications).

  5. Less invasive and therefore more ethical than 90% of European nations (EASO 2018, Busler 2016).

  6. Upholds Refugee Convention (UNHCR 1951), enabling unaccompanied young people to claim asylum from persecution.


Weaknesses

  1. Children wrongfully assessed as adults have no meaningful recourse to review or challenge, causing irreversible harm.  This also detrimentally affects fair processing of their asylum claim, breaching both the UNCRC and the 1951 Refugee Convention.

  2. Significant weight given to assessment by immigration officials lacking comprehensive training and clear parameters for interpretation of cultural and ethnic variations (Home Office 2022b).  This leads to wide margin of error based upon appearance and demeanour (Coram CLC 2017).

  3. Lengthy process with both Home Office and local authorities entitled to dispute age.  This leads to multiple age assessments and convoluted court processes, compounding associated trauma (Coram CLC 2017).

  4. Where local authorities have resources and staff with sufficient expertise, assessments aren’t independent but tied to budgetary and political considerations (Kvittingen 2010).

  5. Where local authorities don’t have the necessary personnel, they are required to outsource this service at great expense.

  6. Non-medical methods are largely subjective, lacking empirical evidence of accuracy  (EASO 2018).

  7. Inconsistency of adherence to policy across all Home Office staff / local authorities (with dense, imprecise guidance). Ability to monitor this is questionable (Refugee Council 2019).

  8. Regarding intersectionality, and by the nature of the policy, those most impacted are young, black migrants from poor socioeconomic backgrounds.  This stands in contrast with those who devised and now implement the policy, highlighting concerns about how informed and equitable it is (Campbell 2020).


Nationality and Borders Bill

Updates

The far-ranging Nationality and Borders Bill includes provision for amendments to UASC age assessment.  This includes (Home Office 2022c);

  • Powers to legally introduce unnamed ‘scientific techniques’.

  • Creation of an advisory committee to review and recommend such methods.

  • Negative credibility inference towards an asylum claimant who refuses to consent to such methods.

  • Creation of the National Age Assessment Board (NAAB), a panel of social workers conducting age assessments on behalf of local authorities.

  • Additional right of appeal against age assessments (as opposed to current judicial review route).


Consideration of Changes

Currently, nothing legally precludes use of alternative age assessment methods but these could now be enshrined in law, indicating a move towards more invasive and unethical techniques.  A negative credibility inference for withholding consent is concerning because this would likely lead to higher rates of refusal despite the impact of trauma / capacity (BASW 2021).  Currently, local authorities must either perform age assessments themselves (though many lack expertise) or outsource at great cost.  By creating the NAAB, this service is offered for free but concerningly brings the function ‘in-house’ to the Home Office, creating a significant conflict of interest around data-use and lack of independence.  Right of appeal theoretically gives greater access to justice, however, nationwide capacity and availability of solicitors is extremely poor (Wilding 2022).  Additionally, this will likely be more administratively burdensome for overstretched local authorities.


Conclusion

Where there is doubt, it is necessary to determine the age of asylum applicants claiming to be children to appropriately process claims and provide the correct level of support.  Age assessment is extremely complex and notoriously inexact, with a range of different methods employed internationally.


In the UK, there are concerns over;

  • training and clarity of process for immigration staff.

  • resourcing of local authorities.

  • accuracy of assessments.

  • monitoring policy adherence nationwide.

  • checks and balances within the adult asylum system.


Despite these issues, as one of only 3 nations in Europe which don’t use medical methods, the UK’s current age assessment policy is one of the more ethical (EASO 2018).  However, this is more due to proper functioning of the UK legal system and successive court judgements rather than a proactive stance by the government (Kvittingen 2010).


Impending updates from the Nationality and Borders Bill threaten a move towards;

  • less ethical methods.

  • punitive measures for those who fail to comply.

  • lack of independence and conflict of interests for assessors.

  • greater administrative burden for local authorities (with lip service to greater access to justice).


Recommendations

  1. Comprehensive risk assessment to balance continued prioritisation of non-invasive methods which safeguard claimants whilst considering accuracy.

  2. Complete separation of National Age Assessment Board (NAAB) from the Home Office to ensure independent and proper functioning.

  3. All immigration officials comprehensively trained on age assessment policy, process, cultural contextualisation and trauma-informed working.

  4. Greater focus by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration on Home Office age assessments to ensure legal compliance.

  5. Introduction of independent, routine review of age-disputed claimants dispersed into the adult asylum system to further uphold the welfare of wrongly assessed children.


References

 
 

Navigating Migration

Get in touch

©2023 by Navigating Migration.

bottom of page