B., a Venezuelan national diagnosed with HIV in 2017, arrived in Spain in 2019, where he applied for international protection on 26 February 2022, citing his health condition and the lack of access to treatment in Venezuela. He had previously lived in Chile before relocating  to Spain where, in 2020, he began receiving medical treatment.

On 21 October 2022, the Ministry of the Interior (the Ministry) rejected the applicant’s claims for refugee status, subsidiary protection and humanitarian residence, arguing that the applicant’s reasons for leaving his country did not fall under any of the grounds of persecution set out in the Refugee Convention, and that he did not qualify for subsidiary protection or for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds.

The applicant appealed the decision before the National High Court, arguing that his advanced illness was the main reason for his claim and that returning to Venezuela would result in the loss of access to medical treatment for HIV. He contended that the Ministry failed to address this issue  and made a decision without motivation, that the  United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had not been notified of his application, violating Article 34 of Law 12/2009 on asylum and subsidiary protection (Asylum Act) and that no administrative hearing was held, violating his right to a due process.

In its reasoning, the National High Court held that the decision was sufficiently motivated, since it explained the legal grounds for the rejection of international protection and enabled the applicant to understand and challenge the reasons for rejection. Secondly, the court found the claim that UNHCR had not been notified to be unsubstantiated, as the administrative file showed that the UN Refugee Agency had been informed by email of the lodging of the application and had participated in the meeting of the Inter-Ministerial Commission for Asylum which issued the proposal to reject the application. Regarding the lack of an administrative hearing, the court noted that Article 25 of the Asylum Act allows for the omission of such a hearing when the decision is based solely on the applicant’s own statements and submitted evidence.

Subsequently, the court examined whether the applicant’s health condition justified protection. Regarding the request for refugee status, the court held that the applicant’s general claims on shortages and insecurity in Venezuela did not amount to persecution under the Refugee Convention.

As for subsidiary protection, the court referred to recent reports on the political and economic situation in Venezuela, including EUAA’s Venezuela: Country Focus report (November 2023), which described a humanitarian crisis and political repression in the country. Citing national case law and the CJEU judgment of 30 January 2014, Aboubacar Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (C-285/12), the court concluded that the situation in Venezuela could not be classified as an armed conflict within the meaning of the recast Qualification Directive and Article 10 of the Asylum Act. Therefore, the court found that the applicant did not face a real risk of serious harm upon return to Venezuela.

Finally, concerning the authorization of residence for humanitarian reasons, the court stressed that no conclusive evidence showed unavailability of HIV treatment in Venezuela, and that, according to the medical reports in the administrative file, the applicant’s earlier decision to delay treatment had been a personal choice. It also noted that the applicant had enjoyed safe residence in Chile, which weighed against granting humanitarian residence under Spanish case law.

In conclusion, the National High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ministry’s decision rejecting all forms of international protection.