By GB News (World News) | Created at 2026-06-24 18:55:53 | Updated at 2026-06-24 19:45:52
1 hour ago
A Vietnamese man who crossed the Channel on a small boat and attempted to deceive British authorities about his age has been exposed after his TikTok profile revealed he was actually 22 years old.
The migrant initially told immigration officials he was 16 before later changing his story to claim he was just 15.
His social media account, however, contradicted these assertions and prompted suspicion among authorities reviewing his asylum claim.
The upper immigration tribunal has now ruled against him, determining his explanations for the discrepancies were not credible and ordering him to cover the legal expenses incurred by Derby council.
The man, who has been granted anonymity, reached Britain after crossing the Channel in March last year.
Upon his detention, both immigration officers and social workers who conducted interviews assessed he was born in 2002, making him an adult.
He subsequently lodged an asylum claim while disputing the age determination, insisting he was a teenager.
When assessors questioned him about his physical appearance, he offered an unusual explanation for his prominent Adam's apple, attributing it to a throat infection he had suffered during childhood.
A migrant who lied about his age has had his lies caught out by his TikTok
GETTY
The Home Office had obtained a screenshot of his TikTok account, which listed him as an adult.
TikTok requires users to be at least 13 years old, but Vietnamese registration rules demand that profiles be linked to a local telephone number or personal identification document for age verification purposes.
This meant the migrant would have needed access to a phone registered in an adult's name to create his account.
He attempted to explain this by claiming neighbours in Vietnam had provided him with a smartphone specifically so he could bypass the age restrictions.
The migrant has been granted anonymity
GETTY
Judge Helen Rimington dismissed this account in her ruling, saying: "It was not plausible that an expensive phone would have been provided as suggested."
The tribunal also noted he could not consistently explain why a random birth date appeared on his profile.
Judge Rimington highlighted multiple factors that informed her decision, noting the migrant had been inconsistent throughout his testimony.
She observed that he failed to obtain documentation from sources that should have been accessible to him, particularly his school records.
"Overall, I attributed weight to the social workers' age assessment, the [migrant's] inconsistency in his evidence and the failure to access documentation from the sources reasonably open to him, particularly the school," the judge said.
She concluded: "I find, therefore, that the [migrant] was an adult on entry, and his date of birth is September 2, 2002."
The man lost his judicial review application against Derby council's original assessment.
His asylum claim continues to be processed.
