Revista Temas de Derecho Constitucional

149 La concesión de asilo como mecanismo de paz y desafíos recientes dentro del procesamiento de casos de asilo de los solicitantes venezolanos en Canadá y los Estados Unidos since the Venezuelan hospitals lacked medical supplies, it is understandable that the applicant did not choose to go there. The judge also agreed with the appellant that he needed his phone to stay in contact with persons who could warn himabout harm. It was considered acceptable that the appellant would choose to avoid immediately fleeing in order not to increase the precariousness of his situation. The Appeals judge did agree with the Refugee Board’s finding that the apellant’s signature of a political declaration and appearance at a political event while in hiding was not consistent with aim of taking precautions. Nevertheless, the Appeals judge found that the supporting evidence which consisted of photographs, support letters, a police report, a copy of a threat letter, and emails was sufficient to back up his allegations of persecution on the basis of political opinion. This case is illustrative of the likelihood of a prevalence of fear and contradictory behavior among Venezuelan asylum applicants, and the importance of having a judge who understands this phenomenon in the context of protection claims. A contrary example is given in a second case which involves a married couple from Venezuela who sought asylum in Canada, Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, MB7-05015. 19 February 2019. They claimed a threat to their lives from the Tupamaros, one of the pro-government colectivos , The husband alleges that as a police officer, he had arrested four Tupamaros in 2014 who were later released by the Minister of the Interior. He was transferred to another police station and then to a prison where he claimed to have been injured and subjected to death threats by Tupamaro inmates during a prison raid. He quit his job as a police officer because he believed that his life was in danger. He then worked in his family’s convenience store, hoping that the Tupamaros would lose interest in him. He also alleges that the Tupamaros threatened him again on the street when he went to get a flight permit to take flying lessons. His wife became pregnant and he sought to leave Venezuela. He claimed that he went to Aruba for 20 days without his wife to seek asylum but did not do so because he claims to have heard that Aruba has an agreement with Venezuela to deport asylum seekers from Venezuela. He returned to Venezuela in spite of allegedly fearing persecutionbut applied for aUS visa. The Tupamaros did not appear to look for himat his family’s home. He later received a US visa, delayed in purchasing airline tickets and departing for two months, but eventually flew to the US and later sought asylum in Canada. The Refugee Protection Division ( hereinafter RPD) did not find him to be credible because they considered his actions to contradict his fear of persecution. The applicant appealed the rejection. The Refugee Appeals Division rejected the appeal, upholding the negative credibility assessment: “I agree with the RPD that (his) decision to work in his family’s convenience store serving the public following his resignation was incompatible with the actions of someone who fears for his life at the hands of the Tupamaros. By working in his family’s convenience store, (he) would be interacting with the public and have a public profile. This is not compatible with the fear he alleged of the Tupamaros killing him at any moment. I note further that (he) also testified that he continued to live at the same address even though he said that he knew that, at any time, the Tupamaros could find and kill him. I find that this too is incompatible with someone who truly fears that he will be targeted with death.