Pierre Salame Ajami v. Veronica Tescari Solano, 29f4th763

Background

Mother Veronica Tescari (Venezuelan) removed two minor children from Barquisimeto, Venezuela to the U.S. in 2018; father Pierre Salame Ajami filed a Hague Convention return petition in February 2019 within one year.
Parties stipulated children’s habitual residence (Venezuela), petitioner’s custody rights and that removal/retention was wrongful under Venezuelan law, establishing a prima facie case.
Tescari and the children received asylum in the U.S. (June 10, 2019); district court held a multi‑day bench trial and concluded Tescari failed to meet the Article 13(b) clear‑and‑convincing burden.
District court found one credible incident of domestic violence against the mother but no abuse of the children, and found the children would have access to shelter, food, medication, school, and local support if returned.
Sixth Circuit (Gibbons, J.) affirmed the return order, concluding no grave risk of physical/psychological harm nor intolerable situation established; Judge Moore dissented, arguing the court should have given greater weight to the asylum grants and Article 20/non‑refoulement considerations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Article 13(b) grave‑risk exception applies based on father’s alleged domestic abuse	Tescari: father physically and verbally abusive; children witnessed abuse; risk to children if returned	Salame: abuse was limited, isolated, and not directed at children; no credible risk to children	Court: one incident found but characterized as relatively minor; did not meet clear‑and‑convincing standard for Article 13(b)
Whether Venezuela constitutes a zone of war/famine creating a grave risk or intolerable situation	Tescari: political/economic crisis, shortages, protests create imminent danger and intolerable conditions	Salame: family has access to food, medicine, generator, school, and avoidable protests; country not in active civil war	Court: country conditions serious but record shows adequate local care and avoidable risks; not a zone of war; no Article 13(b) relief
Whether Venezuelan courts are unable to adjudicate custody and whether asylum prevents mother’s return to litigate	Tescari: courts are corrupt/dysfunctional and she cannot safely return because of asylum status, creating an intolerable situation	Salame: counsel can litigate; evidence showed filings, case access, and ability to obtain judge recusals	Court: appellate court declined to consider novel asylum‑return claim raised only on appeal; district court’s finding that courts could adjudicate custody was not clearly erroneous
Whether U.S. asylum grant bars or controls Hague return order	Tescari: asylum (and derivative asylum for children) precludes return and encroaches on executive authority/non‑refoulement	Salame: asylum does not eliminate district court authority under Hague; asylum relevant but not dispositive	Court: asylum grant does not substitute for Article 13(b)/20 findings; asylum may be relevant evidence but does not bar return; no remand required

Key Cases Cited

Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1 (2014) (explains Convention’s core premise and requires prompt return subject to limited exceptions)
Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 S. Ct. 719 (2020) (best‑interests/habitual residence framing for Convention cases)
Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996) (ICARA/Hague procedural framework; merits vs. custody distinction)
Simcox v. Simcox, 511 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2007) (framework for categorizing abuse and Article 13(b) analysis)
Pliego v. Hayes, 843 F.3d 226 (6th Cir. 2016) (defines "intolerable situation" and when inability to adjudicate custody can qualify)
Sanchez v. R.G.L., 761 F.3d 495 (5th Cir. 2014) (asylum grants are relevant to Article 13(b)/20 analysis but do not control Hague proceedings)
Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010) (directs consideration of uniform international interpretation of the Convention)
Silverman v. Silverman, 338 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (consideration of "zone of war" claims and necessary factual showing)
Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2001) (de novo review of Convention law application and mixed questions of fact and law)