WILLEMSTAD – Two Venezuelan asylum seekers will not receive international protection on Curaçao after the Joint Court of Justice ruled that their account of fleeing persecution due to military desertion was not credible. The decision upholds an earlier rejection issued by the Minister of Justice, making the refusal final.
The couple arrived by boat in December 2023 and applied for asylum the following month. They claimed that the man, a former member of the Venezuelan armed forces, was wanted for desertion and that returning to Venezuela would expose them to a real risk of torture or persecution, in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Court: Key contradictions undermine claim
The Court found that the couple failed to make this risk plausible, pointing to multiple “crucial” inconsistencies in their statements.
One central issue involved two arrest warrants they submitted. Initially, the couple claimed the documents related to two separate incidents. Later, they stated the warrants arose from a single event and that one had been backdated to justify a harsher penalty. They provided no convincing explanation for the conflicting accounts.
Their statements also contradicted each other regarding how the man allegedly learned of the arrest warrant — at one point claiming it happened via a phone call, and at another claiming it occurred during a conversation at work. The Court described these discrepancies as undermining the core of their escape narrative.
Questionable documents
The Minister of Justice had additionally noted several irregularities in the documents themselves. According to the ruling, the warrants contained spelling errors, inconsistent fonts, incorrect military service dates, and referenced a minister who was no longer in office at the time. One warrant was even dated on a Saturday — a day when the issuing authority does not normally operate.
No sign of immediate danger
Another factor weighing against the couple was that they remained in their home in Venezuela for roughly a month after the alleged threat, without any indication that authorities attempted to locate or apprehend them. This, the Court said, does not align with their claim of imminent danger.
General situation in Venezuela not enough
The Court stressed that the burden of proof lies with the asylum seeker. While acknowledging the difficult general situation in Venezuela, the judges reiterated that this alone does not entitle someone to protection.
Because the couple’s story was deemed not credible, the Court concluded that their deportation would not violate international human rights law.