난민불인정결정취소
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 October 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on November 3, 2015, while entering the Republic of Pakistan for a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on October 17, 2015 and staying there.
B. On December 9, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition not recognizing the Plaintiff as a refugee (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion to the Plaintiff does not constitute “a sufficiently based fear of persecution” as stipulated in the Refugee Act and the Convention on the Status of Refugees.
C. On January 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on January 4, 2016, but rendered a final decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application on July 18, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition
A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion and the father of the Plaintiff’s father are hydropatha, and they made a false complaint that the Simpatha of the high local village is related to the Plaintiff’s additional lelebane. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was arrested in the additional police, and the Plaintiff is also likely to be arrested in the police.
In addition, the plaintiff borrowed money for the business in Pakistan and failed to pay it, and there is a risk of being arrested in the police for the above reasons.
Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though there is a high possibility that the plaintiff would be stuffed by the police due to the above circumstances, such as the risk of being arrested in the police.
B. In full view of the following circumstances, the above facts and the purport of the evidence Nos. 3 and 5 as well as the entire arguments, it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff has a well-founded fear of persecution, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.