난민불인정결정취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following addition to the text of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it shall be cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
On the 6th page of the first instance judgment, the following contents are added to the second instance judgment. (4) The Plaintiff asserts that the court appears to be inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s statement is an interpretation error in the refugee interview process, and that the domestic situation of Ethiopia did not change fundamentally and stably to the extent that it can be said that Ethiopia had ceased to have ceased to exist, and that Ethiopia was likely to suffer persecution when the Plaintiff returned to its home country.
However, the Plaintiff did not specifically point out which part of the refugee interview protocol (No. 3 evidence) contains interpretation errors. Moreover, even if examining the entire refugee interview protocol, it is difficult to find out some parts of suspicion of interpretation errors.
In addition, inasmuch as the Ethiopia government actively takes various measures for the unity of meta, as seen earlier, even if the de facto social discrimination or the threat of collision between satisfaction has not been resolved fundamentally, it cannot be said that there is a possibility of imminent harm that constitutes a ground for recognition of refugee status.
The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.