Revista Temas de Derecho Constitucional

156 Revista Temas de Derecho Constitucional Court of Appeals upheld the value of the affidavit and supporting documents in backing his claim that he continued to support Un Nuevo Tiempo while in the US and that the Maduro government “has engaged in a systemic, heightened crackdown on political dissent within Venezuela.” The Court noted that the original Immigration Judge found Cabas to be credible and that the arrest warrant was corroborated by the affidavit and the 2016 US Department of State Human Rights Report. The Court of Appeals noted that there are no reports of fraudulent arrest warrants from Venezuela: “It strikes us as entirely arbitrary to deem Cabas’ proffered testimony to be incredible. It therefore also strikes us as equally arbitrary to treat the warrant as a fraud. In short, ‘absent evidence of forgery, alteration, or some other reason to doubt its authenticity’ we do not think the BIA was entitled to treat the warrant as so obviously fraudulent as to render it insufficient to prove even a prima facie case of likely persecution. We are also troubled by the BIA’s sweeping disregard of Cabas’ affidavit for lack of independent corroboration. If credited, that affidavit provides evidence of his continued political involvement with UN Nuevo Tiempo, the targeting of other members of this political organization for persecution, and the Maduro government’s intention to prosecute Cabas for treason-evidence that is clearly material to Cabas’ claim of future persecution, ‘anapplicant’s testimony if crediblemaybe sufficient. Herewhere the IJdeemed Cabas a credible witness in the underlying proceeding and the BIA points to no other reason to doubt Cabas’ testimony, it was an abuse of discretion to reject the affidavit and disregard its contents. Finally, the BIA made no mention at all of the evidence Cabas proffered in his original asylum case. This too, was an error. Though we previously held that Cabas did not suffer past persecution while living in Venezuela, his evidence of real harassment from government- sponsored gangs due to his political activism certainly warrants some weight in deciding whether he will suffer persecution upon his return to Venezuela in the worsened conditions that now exist.” Hence, the Court of Appeals concluded that the BIA turned a blind eye to salient facts and that Cabas had demonstrated a reasonable chance of persecution based on political opinion. The BIA’s decision was reversed. This case illustrates the importance of appeals judges’ review of biased or arbitrary interpretation of subjective testimony and objective evidence. Failure to Identify a Nexus to Political Opinion The 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees requires that the well-founded fear of persecution have a nexus to one of the five protection categories: Race, Religion, Nationality, Social Group, and Political Opinion. The recent cases involving Venezuelans indicate that similar to the phenomenon of “credibility fatigue”, there may be a reluctance on the part of the immigration judge to recognize a nexus to political opinion in asylum determination. The case of Alicia Berenice Tosar-Cedeno, Diana Tosar- Cedeno v. U.S. Attorney General , No. 18-13376, 2019 WL, 2371888, 11 th circuit Court (June 5, 2019), involves a mother and daughter from Venezuela. Alicia claimed that she participated in political rallies in 2014 and worked for a company called Preincar which offered assistance to participants in rallies, such as provision of food and shelter