Revista Temas de Derecho Constitucional

153 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 Court cites the regulatory standard for credibility determinations, to be based on the totality of the circumstances, including: 1) the demeanor, candor and responsiveness of the applicant, 2) the plausibility of the applicant’s account 3) the consistency between the applicant’s written and oral statements, and 4) the internal consistency of each statement, and 5) the consistency of the applicant’s statements with other record evidence, including country reports. The Court of Appeals held: “That the perceived omissions and inconsistencies that the BIA and IJ relied on are not plausible or material inconsistencies and omissions. It concluded that Vallenilla’s omission until her testimony on cross- examination that the men who shot at her car were Tupamaros was immaterial given that 1) she consistently described them as armed men on motorcycles, which matched her description of Tupamaros in other contexts, 2) she was not directly asked what the men were wearing until cross-examination, and 3) she consistently stated and testified that they shot at her without any provocation and later threatened her in a way that linked the attack to her being a ‘traitor to the homeland.’ As to the perceived inconsistency between Vallenilla’s and her mother’s statements regarding the home invasion, where Vallenilla referred to the invaders as Tupamaros and her mother referred to them as three armed men, this inconsistency is not material because the men did not self-identify as Tupamaro, her mother agreed with her account of what they did, and they came to find and destroy evidence that Vallenilla had gathered regarding what had happened at the demonstration. Accordingly, the perceived inconsistencies and omissions were not material and do not support the adverse credibility determination.” The Court of Appeals also held that the adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence in light of the record as a whole: “Vallenilla’s personal statement, testimony and application consistently described multiple events where pro-government colectivos attacked her for reporting on social media that portrayed them in a negative or violent light. She consistently described the dates of each encounter, the details, the persons who attacked and assisted her and why she was targeted by the pro- government colectivos .” The Court of Appeals noted that she had provided corroborative documents to her testimony and that she described the grounds for asylum without exaggeration, therefore the record as a whole compels a positive credibility determination. The Court concluded that shehadprovideda substantial amount of corroborative evidence supporting her application, personal statement, and testimony, including her social media post to Voluntad Popular about where to march against the government, emails send to her by Voluntad Popular , a statement by her mother, her Primero Justicia identification card, her journalist’s credentials, and several photographs from demonstrations. She provided photographs and social media posts of her political activity and noted that her laptop had been stolen. The Court of Appeals granted the appeal, thereby correcting arbitrary credibility determination.