In this case, the appellant lodged an age assessment appeal regarding Article 25A(7) of the Immigration Act, Chapter 217 of the Laws of Malta. The Immigration Appeals Board Division II however found that, given (a) the lack of authentic documentation from the appellant, (b) his physical appearance suggesting adulthood, (c) a bone age test, the appellant failed to prove beyond doubt that he is not an adult, and thus denied the appeal.
Source: here
In this case, the appellant lodged an appeal regarding his age assessment regarding Article 25A(7) of the Immigration Act, Chapter 217 of the Laws of Malta. The Immigration Appeals Board Division considered the bone age test conducted by the Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers. However, given the high margin of error of these tests of 2-3 years and the lack of accuracy when looking at physical traits, the IAB Div I determined a holistic approach was most appropriate to determine the age of the appellant. As such, looking at the appellant’s date of birth as written on his vaccine card, birth certificate, and school certificate, IAB Div I concludes that the appellant was a minor and that AWAS had wrongly issued a decision using imprecise research.
Source: here
The Court stated that a prolongation of a parents and their child’s stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was not warranted as the lengthening of the asylum procedure was not of their doing. The court moreover referred itself to the best interest of the child. The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention.
Source: PDF file with the case
The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention, and did not consider carefully enough if a stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was appropriate for the parent’s two children.
Source: PDF file with the case
The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention, and did not consider carefully enough if a stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was appropriate for a child.
Source: PDF file with the case
The Court did not examine extensively enough alternative measures to detention, and did not consider carefully enough if a stay in a guarded centre for foreigners was appropriate for a child.
Source: PDF file with the case
