Nigel Farage Rages: ‘Total Abuse of Our Generosity!’ – Bearded Asylum Seeker Officially Declared ‘Child’ by Judges

In a controversial ruling that has sparked outrage, an immigration tribunal has declared that a Sudanese asylum seeker with a receding hairline and thick facial hair should be treated as a 17-year-old child, despite the Home Office estimating his age to be between 23 and 25.

The decision, made by Judge Hugo Norton-Taylor and Judge Sarah Pinder, has drawn sharp criticism from figures like Nigel Farage and former Conservative minister Tom Pursglove, who argue that it highlights flaws in the UK’s asylum system and poses serious safeguarding risks.

Nigel Farage, speaking on GB News, called the ruling a “total abuse of our generosity” and reflected widespread public anger over the decision.

The British public are just furious at this,” he said. Farage and others have questioned how someone with clear physical signs of adulthood—such as a receding hairline, thick facial hair, and a broad chest—could be classified as a child.

Tom Pursglove echoed these concerns, warning of the “obvious safeguarding risks” of placing adults in children’s settings. He emphasized the potential dangers of allowing someone who appears to be in their mid-20s to attend school with actual children, calling the situation “unacceptable.”

The asylum seeker, who arrived in the UK on September 6, 2023, claimed to have been born on April 3, 2007, making him 16 at the time of his arrival. He stated that he fled war in Sudan, traveling through Libya, Tunisia, Italy, and France before crossing the Channel. However, the Home Office argued that he had been “calculated” in his attempts to conceal information about his age, name, origin, and identity documents.

Despite the Home Office’s assessment, the tribunal ruled that it was “more likely than not” the asylum seeker had provided a true account of his age. The judges dismissed evidence of his physical appearance, including his facial hair, and rejected arguments that his wisdom teeth indicated he was older. They also noted a photograph from April 2024 showing “very light facial hair on his upper lip,” which they used to support their decision.

The ruling has significant implications. The asylum seeker will now be treated as a child during his application process, and Hounslow Council, which is responsible for his care, has been ordered to pay more than £30,000 towards his legal costs. He will also receive support and services under the Children Act 1989, including access to children’s accommodation and education.

This case has reignited debates about the accuracy and reliability of age assessments in the UK’s asylum system. Critics argue that the current process is too lenient and open to abuse, potentially putting vulnerable children at risk by allowing adults to access services intended for minors. Supporters of the tribunal’s decision, however, stress the importance of giving asylum seekers the benefit of the doubt, particularly when they come from war-torn regions where documentation may be unavailable or unreliable.

The controversy also highlights broader concerns about the asylum system, including the challenges of verifying identities and ages in the absence of reliable documentation. As the UK continues to grapple with high levels of migration and a backlog of asylum cases, this ruling is likely to fuel calls for stricter age verification processes and greater scrutiny of asylum claims.

For now, the decision stands, but it has undoubtedly added fuel to the ongoing debate over immigration and asylum policy in the UK. As Farage and Pursglove have made clear, many believe the system is being exploited, and they are demanding reforms to prevent similar cases in the future.