Revista Temas de Derecho Constitucional

155 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 “. . . Reveals a material shift in Venezuela’s political landscape and a significant escalation in the dangers that opposition political activists fact in that country. . . For one, the country reports document a substantial increase in the rate of arbitrary detentions in Venezuela since 2009, particularly for political activists. . .The 2016 report recounts that ‘police often detained individuals without a warrant’ and documents ‘at least 2,000 open cases of arbitrary detentions’ that year and 5,853 arbitrary detentions from February 2014 to June 2016. The 2016 report provides numerous specific accounts of Venezuelan authorities targeting political dissidents for such treatment. And though Venezuelan law ‘allows detainees access to counsel and family members’ mandates that prisoners ‘be informed promptly of the charges against them,’ and requires that they appear before a judge ‘to determine the legality of the detention’ the 2016 report observes that these requirements were not honored for political prisoners.” The Court of Appeal also noted the 2016’s report of a rise in the number of political prisoners to over 100, the restriction of movement or other precautionary measure placed on 1,998 political activists, as well as over 1,296 extrajudicial killings and raids, the increase of pro-government gangs, new restrictions on freedom of assembly and association under the Maduro regime, including detention of protestors, and limiting access to opposition rallies, suspension of the constitutional right to meet publically or privately without prior government permission and to peacefully demonstrate, increased authoritarianism, and elections marred by “government interference, electoral irregularities, and manipulation of voters.” The Court of Appeals concluded that: “It is inescapably apparent that country conditions have worsened in a manner that is material to Cabas’ asylum claim. . . The Venezuelan government’s increasingly aggressive, increasingly violent repression of political dissent and its shift toward authoritarian rule certainly make it more likely that a political dissident would face persecution upon returning to Venezuela. . . The BIA’s conclusion to the contrary lacks record support and is, for that reason, arbitrary. Cabas has provided an affidavit stating that he still supports UnNuevo Tiempo and contributes 50 to 100 USD every two or three months, that two of his friends who were members of Un Nuevo Tiempo, were arrested during a political protest in 2017 and subsequently tortured and killed, and that his mother received a a warrant for his arrest in which he was charged for treason. Hence he fears that he will be killed.” The Court of Appeals noted that the BIA gave no explanation for its negative conclusion and did not mention other evidence presented or the record from the original removal proceedings. It stated that the warrant, if real, provides compelling evidence of likely persecution should Cabas return. The warrant establishes that the Venezuelan government views him as an opposition figure and aims to try him for treason. The Court of Appeals cited the 2016 Human Rights Watch Report indicating that political opponents have faced sanctions up to 25 years in prison, and many are tortured while in custody. The Court accepted the genuineness of the arrest warrant based on the imprimatur of the Venezuelan government, signature of the issuing judge, and noted the corroboration of the affadavit’s claim that his mother had received the warrant. The