An Afghan migrant who replied “I don’t know” more than 150 times when questioned about his past has been allowed to stay in Britain after a judge accepted that his confused answers came from serious health problems, not dishonesty. In a decision that throws fresh light on how vulnerable asylum seekers are treated in Home Office interviews, the immigration tribunal granted him leave to remain following a legal challenge to an earlier age assessment.
Background and claim history
The man, whose name is protected for legal reasons, left Afghanistan shortly after the fall of Kabul in August 2021. According to the tribunal decision in case JR-2025-LON-000432, he had only reached grade 6 in school before fleeing and had grown up in a community where exact birth dates were rarely discussed.
When he claimed asylum in the UK, officials required a precise date of birth, but he did not have one. After arriving in the UK, other migrants told him he needed a date of birth to complete forms, so he picked one at random without grasping its importance in the asylum process. The tribunal found this explanation plausible, noting he had only learned about the Gregorian calendar after reaching Britain.
Home Office age assessment and responses
During his Home Office age assessment, he said “I don’t know” at least 158 times when asked about:
- his age,
- his date of birth, and
- parts of his personal history.
Officials treated these repeated replies with suspicion, raising doubts about both his age and his general credibility. Home Office caseworkers highlighted apparent inconsistencies, including changes in the age he claimed and confusion over key dates. Under normal circumstances, such discrepancies can seriously damage an asylum claim.
Medical and social evidence
Independent medical evidence later showed he lives with epilepsy, mental health problems, and impaired cognitive functioning — conditions that can seriously affect memory and concentration.
Key assessments and testimonies:
| Witness / Source | Role | Main findings |
|---|---|---|
| Dr. Connor | Medical specialist | Reported that epilepsy and mental health problems could explain inability to give clear answers and recall timelines. |
| Professor Koepp | Medical specialist | Agreed that conditions would make retaining new information and recalling past events on demand very difficult, especially under stress. |
| Foster carer | Carer | Said he struggled with simple tasks and often forgot things he had just been told. |
| Ms. Markey | Social worker | Recorded ongoing problems with memory, understanding, and information retention; described confusion when asked to repeat details. |
The tribunal described the medical reports as consistent with his presentation. Both doctors and the social worker noted long pauses, repeated “I don’t know” answers, and clear anxiety when the man was pressed on dates and sequences he could not fix in his mind.
The tribunal concluded the man’s epilepsy, mental health conditions, and limited schooling were the best explanation for the inconsistencies, rather than any attempt to deceive.
Cultural and educational context
The tribunal accepted evidence about his upbringing:
- In his Afghan village, neither he nor his family focused on exact ages or formal records.
- He had never celebrated a birthday on a fixed date.
- In rural communities, people may count years loosely or tie life stages to major events (harvests, weddings, conflicts) rather than calendar dates.
These cultural and educational factors, combined with cognitive impairment, made it understandable that he did not know or could not reliably state precise dates.
Legal outcome and implications
The tribunal granted him leave to remain, giving him permission to live, study, and work in the UK, subject to the usual immigration rules. While the summary did not set out the exact length and type of his leave, such grants usually:
- allow access to basic services,
- remove the immediate threat of removal, and
- provide life-changing protection for someone who fled as a minor with no clear sense of age and serious health issues.
Wider context and reactions
This case comes amid strong political and public pressure in the UK for a tougher stance on perceived “abuse” of asylum rules. Age disputes are a particularly sensitive area, with parts of the press and some politicians accusing young asylum seekers of pretending to be children.
Analysis by VisaVerge.com notes age assessments have become a flashpoint, with local authorities and the Home Office increasingly challenged in court over how they treat young people who lack documents or clear memories.
Rights groups argue this ruling highlights why a rigid focus on consistency can be unfair for people with cognitive problems or trauma. Many Afghans who fled after the Taliban takeover travelled in chaos, often without proper documents and after years of war, poverty, and displacement. Memories of dates, schooling, or ages can be vague or fragmented.
What the tribunal’s approach shows
The tribunal did not downplay the importance of checking claims carefully. Instead, it:
- weighed the repeated “I don’t know” replies against medical evidence, limited education, and cultural background,
- recognized that repeated uncertainty is not, on its own, proof of lying, and
- accepted independent corroboration from doctors and social workers describing the same pattern of confusion and memory gaps.
For practitioners and applicants, the decision signals two practical points:
- For asylum seekers with similar problems:
- Bringing medical, neurological, or social work evidence can materially affect outcomes.
- For decision-makers (local councils and Home Office staff):
- Professional assessments from neurologists, psychiatrists, and social workers should carry weight.
- Questioning techniques may need to be adjusted for vulnerable applicants, including those with epilepsy or suspected learning difficulties.
If you have medical or cognitive challenges, gatherNeurological, psychiatric, and social-work reports early and share them with the asylum process to support any unclear memories or dates.
Guidance and next steps
Official guidance on asylum claims and age assessments is available on the UK government’s website, which explains how people can claim asylum in the UK and what happens when their age is disputed. That guidance already mentions that decision-makers should take account of medical and social work evidence.
This case demonstrates how, when such evidence is given proper weight, it can completely change the outcome for a young person caught in the system.
By granting leave to remain in JR-2025-LON-000432, the judge signalled that the asylum system must allow for people whose minds and memories have been damaged by illness, trauma, and a lifetime spent far from clocks, calendars, and official records.
A tribunal granted an Afghan migrant leave to remain after concluding his repeated “I don’t know” answers resulted from epilepsy, mental health problems, and limited education. Medical and social evidence demonstrated impaired memory and information retention; cultural factors and lack of official records explained date uncertainty. The judge found the inconsistencies better explained by vulnerability than deception. The ruling urges decision-makers to weigh clinical assessments and adjust questioning for vulnerable asylum seekers.
