Buscador de jurisprudencia

The mother and father were Venezuelan citizens and had two children. In 2018 the mother took the children from their home in Venezuela to the United States.

In February 2019 the father filed an application under the 1980 Hague Convention for their return to Venezuela.

In June 2019 the mother and, as derivative family members, the children were granted asylum in the United States.

The mother invoked Article 13(1)(b) of the Convention and argued that returning the children to Venezuela would put them at a grave risk of harm. The district court concluded that the mother failed to establish that there would be such a grave risk of harm and ordered the return of the children.

The mother appealed this decision. She argued, amongst other things, that the district court failed to properly consider her grant of asylum.

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The Court held that the district court had the authority to order the return of the children, regardless of their asylum status, as the evidentiary burdens for the Convention differ from asylum proceedings.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Despite Venezuela’s political and civil unrest, the mother failed to introduce sufficient evidence that it is a zone of war, famine, or disease amounting to a grave risk of harm within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b).

In this case the mother and children had been granted asylum before the district court ordered the return of the child, however, the Court held that this did not remove from the district court the authority to make independent findings. The Court noted the evidentiary burdens for the Convention differ from asylum proceedings.

While the factors that go into a grant of asylum may be relevant to determinations under the 1980 Convention, the district court has a separate and exclusive responsibility to assess the applicability of an Article 13(1)(b) exception.