Threshold for determining individual risk in deportation cases to Venezuela

Facts

The authors, Venezuelan nationals, applied for asylum in the State party citing political persecution after their 2004 opposition to then-President Chávez led to their registration in a government blacklist, barring them from public employment and services. They faced economic hardship, food scarcity, and medical issues, with the father requiring diabetes medication and the mother suffering from severe depression. Their asylum claim was rejected in 2016, as authorities found no evidence of persecution, unrestricted travel, and available medical care. Appeals to domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights were unsuccessful, as were subsequent efforts to halt their expulsion, with the Migration Agency ultimately reaffirming that they lacked a substantiated personal risk warranting protection.

The authors claimed that the family’s deportation to Venezuela would amount to a violation of several of their rights under the Covenant. They cited articles 6 and 7, referencing threats to life, health, and the risk of inhuman treatment due to lack of medical care and mental health risks. Articles 9 (1) and 10 (1) were invoked over fears of arbitrary detention tied to their political past. They alleged discrimination under articles 2 and 26, and article 17 for interference with family and private life. Articles 13 and 14 were raised over procedural shortcomings in their asylum process, while article 19 concerned their right to free expression. Finally, they invoked articles 23 (1), 24, and 25 (c) to highlight risks to their children and exclusion from public services due to political views.

Admissibility

The Committee dismissed claims under articles 5, 9, 10, 13, and 14 as inadmissible. It found that article 5 could not be invoked by individuals, that the authors’ detention was legally justified with procedural safeguards, that they had multiple opportunities to challenge their expulsion under article  13, and that immigration proceedings do not fall under article  14. The claims under articles 9 and 10 were deemed unsubstantiated, as the detention was lawful and proportionate given the risk of absconding.

Regarding the core claim under articles 6 and 7, the Committee reiterated that deportation must present a personal and substantial risk of irreparable harm. It noted that while Venezuela faced severe economic, social, and political crises, this alone did not entitle all citizens to international protection. The Committee emphasised that the authors needed to demonstrate a specific, individualised risk but had not done so. The State party’s authorities had assessed that the authors were not high-profile political figures at risk of persecution, had previously been able to work and travel, and could potentially support themselves if deported. Additionally, the migration authorities determined that medical treatment was available in Venezuela, albeit with some difficulties, and that the authors had not provided sufficient evidence of being denied essential services. The Committee found no indication that the State party’s assessment was arbitrary, amounted to a manifest error, or constituted a denial of justice. Consequently, it concluded that the authors failed to substantiate their claims under articles 6 and 7, rendering the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.