WILLEMSTAD - The Common Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, and the BES islands has upheld a decision by the Curaçao Minister of Justice to deny a Venezuelan man’s request for international protection, ruling that the applicant failed to demonstrate a real risk of persecution or inhumane treatment if returned to Venezuela.
The case, registered under number CUR2025H00179, involved a Venezuelan national who entered Curaçao by boat in September 2020 and later applied for asylum under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. The man claimed that he had been detained and mistreated by Venezuela’s Special Action Forces (FAES) after attempting to flee the country.
In October 2024, the Curaçao Ministry of Justice rejected his asylum request, a decision confirmed by the Court of First Instance in May 2025. The appellant, represented by attorney S.N. Zahedi, appealed that ruling, arguing that the interview process was flawed and that officials failed to properly investigate the disappearance of his brother — a key motive for his flight.
The appellant further claimed that no interpreter or legal representative was present during his asylum hearing and that the questioning was conducted by an officer from the enforcement division rather than a trained asylum officer, compromising the fairness of the process.
However, the Court found these arguments unconvincing. The judgment stated that both the applicant and the interviewing officer were fluent in Spanish, making an interpreter unnecessary. The applicant had access to the interview report and the opportunity to make corrections afterward, which he did not use. The Court also noted that the interviewing officer had received specialized training in conducting asylum interviews, and the hearing was carried out in a structured and professional manner.
Regarding the alleged lack of follow-up questions about the applicant’s missing brother, the Court ruled that this omission did not affect the carefulness or legality of the decision. The man’s account, while credible regarding his identity and encounters with FAES, did not establish an individual and specific risk of persecution upon return to Venezuela.
The Court concluded that the reported mistreatment occurred in the context of border control operations and was not directed at the applicant personally, meaning it did not meet the threshold of Article 3 ECHR.
As a result, the appeal was declared unfounded, and the earlier ruling of the Court of First Instance was confirmed. The government was not ordered to pay legal costs.
The judgment, delivered by a three-judge panel chaired by Justice B.J. van Ettekoven, reaffirms the high evidentiary threshold for asylum claims in Curaçao under the European human rights framework.