OA149812014

The Respondent decided to deport the Appellant on 12 September 2014 by virtue of s32 (5) of the UK Borders Act 2007 due to her conviction and sentence of 5 ½ years in jail for her involvement in the importation of £264,000 worth of Class A drugs. She was born on 3 August 1980 and is now 35 years old.

Her appeal against that decision was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Cohen following a hearing on 2 September 2015. Following a hearing on 7 March 2016 I set aside the decision as I was not satisfied that the Appellant in Jamaica or her family here had been notified of the date time and venue of the hearing and there had been an inadvertent material error law for which no fault attached to Judge Cohen. No findings were preserved. This appeal before me was therefore against the Respondent's original decision.

In deportation appeals, the burden of proof is on the Respondent to show that on the balance of probabilities the Appellant is in law a member of the class of people liable for deportation.

In human rights appeals, if it is established that there is a real risk that there will be an interference with the Appellant's human rights and the relevant article permits, it is then for the Respondent to establish that the interference is justified.

In assessing the evidence a great many cases provide guidance on how the risk is to be assessed. I remind myself of the methodological guidance set out in Karanakaran v SSHD [2000] 3 AII ER 449 and bear in mind the words of Scott Baker J that: