난민불인정처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of a decision not to recognize refugee status;
A. The first application for refugee status was filed on September 16, 2017 on the ground that the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) status on September 16, 2017 as a student of the Republic of Maliba’s nationality, and on September 21, 2017, filed an application for refugee status recognition with the Defendant on the ground that “a threat resulting from the objection to women’s example (FGM)” with the Defendant.
② On November 24, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to recognize the refugee status against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on September 3, 2018.
③ The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the decision on the rejection of refugee status by asserting that “Absia was threatened with life in one village while making a campaign against women in the opposition to the foregoing female case.” However, on May 15, 2019 (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2018Gudan19538), the Plaintiff’s appeal (Seoul High Court Decision 2019Nu45069) was dismissed, and the said decision became final and conclusive on October 15, 2019.
B. On January 7, 2020, after the above judgment became final, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status again with the Defendant for the same reason.
② On January 22, 2020, the Defendant used the Plaintiff’s “No new change in circumstances to reverse the previous decision on refugee status. During an interview, the Plaintiff used the name of the person threatening the Plaintiff and the name of a pro-Japanese who aided the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s submission of the Plaintiff’s document stating that the Plaintiff is threatened to the Plaintiff on the ground of female funeral activities, and that the Plaintiff’s use of the expression “the number of times” against the Plaintiff is different from the state’s circumstances that punish the person related to the female funeral, and it is difficult to trust the authenticity of the relevant document, because it is difficult for the Plaintiff to clearly understand the fact that the Plaintiff’s statement concerning the membership organization or activities is not specific.” The instant disposition is hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).