Revista Temas de Derecho Constitucional

150 Revista Temas de Derecho Constitucional I also agree with the RPD that (his) credibility was adversely affected by an inconsistency in his evidence regarding the precautions he took to protect himself. He testified that he protected himself by not going out except to work. When the RPD asked him to explain the apparent inconsistency between this answer and his statement in his BoC that he was taking flight lessons, (he) replied that these lessons were very close to his house. He also said that he had to keep going forward with his life. I agree with the RPD that his response did not explain the inconsistency with his earlier testimony that he only left home to work. I also agree with the RPD that the fact of going out to take flight lessons is an action that was incompatible with (his) alleged fear of being killed at any moment by the Tupamaros. As noted by the RPD, this is especially the case since he alleged that he ran into a group of Tupamaros in August 2015, on the very day that he went to get his permit to take the course. For the above reasons, I agree that these actions were incompatible with the actions one would expect of someone who fears he will be killed by Tupamaros at any moment. These incompatible actions undermine the subjective fear of persecution alleged by (him) as well as the credibility of his claim that he is a person in need of protection. . .” The Refugee Appeals Board also agreed that his return to Venezuela from Aruba was incompatible and the two month delay in departing from Venezuela to the US was incompatible with an alleged fear of persecution. Futhermore, the RPD found fault with the fact that they did not seek asylum in another country. The apellants argued that the RPD erred by failing to take into account the documentary evidence in the form of articles reporting on the killing of police officers in Venezuela and the state of criminality and insecurity. The Refugee Appeals Board held that the articles were not relevant because they only addressed the killing of active duty police offers not former police officers. Hence the Refugee Appeals Board held that the documentary evidence was insufficient to for prove a serious risk of persecution or threat to life. This case demonstrates the failure of an appeals judge to fully analyze possible alternative explanations for contradictory behavior on the part of the appellant. The judge summarily concurs with the RPD based on a formalistic approach which upholds a rather subjective determination by the RPD of what is reasonable behavior. • Evans Cameron provides a very helpful overview for evaluating fear and contradictory behavior by asylum applicants 7 : • Familiar risk- persons carry on with life in spite of threat • Appeal of risky behavior- escapism, contact with family, confirmation of status or identity, community, financial security 7 Hilary Evans Cameron, “Risk Theory and ‘Subjective Fear’: The Role of Risk Perception, Assessment, and Management in Refugee Status Determinations”, International Journal of Refugee Law , Volume 20, Issue 4, December 2008, Pages 567–585, https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/een032