난민불인정처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 3, 2006, the Plaintiff changed the status of stay [the status of non-professional employment (E-9) to a foreigner of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter “Skistan”) to the status of stay on January 3, 2006 of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter “Skistan”), and repeated entry and departure several times after entering the Republic of Korea, and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on April 21, 2014.
B. On December 9, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having “a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would suffer from persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).
C. The Plaintiff appealed to the Minister of Justice on December 30, 2014, but the foregoing objection was dismissed on September 24, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. From 2000 to 2005, the Plaintiff asserted that, as a sponsor of a political party, the Plaintiff was engaged in activities such as party publicity, participation in assemblies, and attaching a leaflet for local residents. The Plaintiff’s father was engaged in activities as a unit mark within the region.
Around 208 when the Plaintiff was staying in the Republic of Korea, there were about 120 persons among the party members of the WT area, and around 2010 persons died. Around 2010, an attack against a village in which the Hashes died or injured by the NP party members, and all of the family members living in the Kamera but still feel fear of an attack against the Hashes.
In the event that the plaintiff returned to Pakistan, the plaintiff did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee despite the possibility of persecution for the above reasons.