The Bolivarian Concept of the Internal Enemy

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal
• Citation: Vol. 5 No. 2
• Publication year: 2023

The Bolivarian Concept of the Internal Enemy

[Page 195]

What Does This Mean for Venezuelan Asylum Seekers?

Emercio José Aponte and Andrea Paola Aponte ^*

Abstract: To qualify for asylum an applicant bears the burden of credibly demonstrating that they meet the statutory definition of a refugee, that they are outside of their country and are unable or unwilling to return due to past persecution and/or a well-founded fear that future persecution on account of political opinion, race, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group. Political opinion as a ground for requesting asylum presumes that (1) the applicant holds opinions or beliefs not tolerated by authority and (2) said authority is aware of this difference in opinion or belief. This article analyzes the oppression of Nicolás Maduro's authoritarian regime toward any Venezuelan who expresses political beliefs in support of the opposition, known to the regime as the "internal enemy," which has forced many Venezuelans to conceal their opinions, hide from the public, or leave the country. This reality is used to demonstrate past persecution as well as a well-founded fear of future persecution based on the arguments used by Circuit Courts of Appeals to affirm the existence of persecution in religious cases, as well as a well-founded fear of future persecution due to the existence of a pattern or practice of persecution against a group of persons similarly situated.

Introduction

It is important to remember that to qualify for a grant of asylum, an applicant bears the burden of credibly demonstrating that they meet the statutory definition of a refugee. A refugee is a person who is outside of their country, unable or unwilling to return to, and unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country because they have suffered past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of political opinion, race, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group. ¹

Therefore, based on the refugee definition, a person may be a refugee not only when they have suffered past persecution on account of one or more of the aforementioned five protected grounds, but also when the person has a well-founded fear of future persecution, which implies that an individual does not need to have suffered past persecution to meet the definition of refugee and to be granted asylum.

[Page 196]

Political opinion as a ground for requesting asylum "presupposes that the applicant holds opinions not tolerated by the authorities, which are critical of their policies or methods. It also presupposes that such opinions have come to the notice of the authorities or are attributed by them to the applicant." ² An example of political opinion is taking part in public protest and demonstrations against the government of Nicolás Maduro. ³

Unfortunately, the authoritarian nature of the Maduro regime is a serious reality that has "caused nearly 7 million Venezuelans to flee their country." ⁴ Today it is impossible to deny the authoritarian nature of the Venezuelan executive power, which exercises control over the other branches of the Venezuelan government. ⁵

Multiple human rights reports and press releases detail the existence of a pattern of persecution, torture, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions, brutal repression, and the use of the judiciary to intimidate, prosecute, and punish those who oppose the Maduro regime. ⁶ These abuses are carried out in a manner that implies the existence of a systematic, persistent, and organized persecution against those who dare to publicly express their opposition, to the point that there is an open investigation before the International Criminal Court for the commission of crimes against humanity in Venezuela. ⁷

In fact, when implementing a parole process for Venezuelans, the U.S. government cited a February 2022 report from Amnesty International that found that "[c]rimes under international law and human rights violations (. . .) have been systematic and widespread and could constitute crimes against humanity." ⁸ Within this context of a systematic, persistent, and organized persecution against those who dare to publicly express their opposition, the Maduro regime has implemented the Bolivarian concept of the internal enemy. ⁹

The existence of the internal enemy shows the impossibility of publicly expressing opposition to the regime without the risk of being persecuted by the regime's security forces, colectivos, and its other structures of social and political control, such as the Network of Articulation and Sociopolitical Action (RAAS) and the communal councils. This reality moves Venezuelans, among other actions, to conceal their political beliefs to avoid being persecuted for political reasons, which may be used to demonstrate past persecution as well as a well-founded fear of future persecution based on the arguments used by Circuit Courts of Appeals to affirm the existence of persecution in religious cases.

Likewise, the pattern or practice of persecution that exists in Venezuela against a group of persons similarly situated to the applicant on account of political beliefs serves to demonstrate, independently of the above-mentioned arguments, the existence of a well-founded fear of future persecution. ¹⁰

Past Persecution Based on Political Beliefs

Even though there is no statutory definition of persecution, it has been defined as a "threat to the life or freedom of, or the infliction of suffering or

[Page 197]

harm upon, those who differ in a way regarded as offensive." ¹¹ The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals described persecution as "punishment or the infliction of harm for political, religious, or other reasons that this country does not recognize as legitimate," which "need not necessarily threaten the petitioner's life or freedom," but it must be more than mere harassment. ¹² The Eleventh Circuit of Appeals has affirmed that persecution requires "more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation," ¹³ but a "serious physical injury is not required to demonstrate past persecution." ¹⁴

Persecution "may be emotional or psychological," ¹⁵ because "'techniques of persecution are not limited to bodily violence alone.' Congressman Feighan said on the House floor, 'tyranny over the mind and spirit of a person has been demonstrated as more fearsome than the ancient methods of torture.'" ¹⁶ The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has stated "that the concept of persecution is broad enough to include governmental measures that compel an individual to engage in conduct that is not physically painful or harmful but is abhorrent to that individual's deepest beliefs." ¹⁷ Therefore, "persecution encompasses both physical and mental suffering; by deleting the qualifier 'physical' from the statute's definition of persecution of 1969, Congress intended to include mental suffering." ¹⁸

Moreover, different instances of mistreatment, when considered on their own, may not amount to persecution, but when evaluated together they may amount to past persecution if they were inflicted on account of a protected ground. ¹⁹ That is why "various measures not in themselves amounting to persecution, in some cases combined with other adverse factors, [such as the perpetration of crimes against humanity and the systematic pattern of persecution that exist in Venezuela], may amount to persecution on cumulative grounds." ²⁰ Consequently, the severity of the incidents suffered by the asylum applicant "should not be addressed in insolation without considering the cumulative effect of events" and the country conditions. ²¹

The existence of the Bolivarian concept of the internal enemy shows the impossibility of publicly expressing opposition to the regime without the risk of being illegally detained, forcibly disappeared, sexually abused, tortured, or even killed, ²² to the point that "many victims choose to reduce their activities, go into hiding or leave the country." ²³ Opponents are forced to choose between expressing their opposition in private, not taking part in public political meetings, marches, or protests to protect their lives, or leaving the country.

To the government of Maduro, the internal enemy is "any member of the population in opposition to the Bolivarian revolution," which includes any person who speaks out against government policies. Members of the internal enemy are "targets of the Government[,] who has the explicit intent to deprive them of their fundamental rights." ²⁴ Likewise, the security forces, as well as the colectivos, "identify dissidents as terrorists, enemies and traitors to the motherland," ²⁵ and high-level authorities label demonstrators as enemies. ²⁶ The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has affirmed that at least since April 2017 the regime, its security forces, and the colectivos have

[Page 198]

committed crimes against humanity against those who publicly participated in demonstration, marches, or protests against the regime. ²⁷

In cases of religious persecution, "[c]ourts have emphasized that no one should be expected to choose between abandoning his or her faith and being persecuted." ²⁸ The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed that forcing someone to renounce their beliefs or to abandon their religious worship constitutes persecution, ²⁹ and the Eleventh Circuit has sustained "that having to practice religion underground to avoid punishment is itself a form of persecution." ³⁰ Clearly, "silence is far from a balm or a refuge; it is a state of mental suffering, from which refugees should be entitled to protection." ³¹

These arguments used by circuit courts of appeals to affirm the existence of persecution in religious cases are perfectly applicable in cases of political persecution, because "people similarly define themselves according to their political views." ³² Therefore, "[b]eing forced to conceal one's political...