2015Guhap51617. Revocation of a decision not to return refugee status review

Earia ○ ○○

(NdaOO 0000, 1989)

Attorney Kim J-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The head of Incheon Airport Immigration Office

The main effect of the litigation performer;

September 3, 2015

October 1, 2015

1. On March 3, 2015, the Defendant’s decision not to return refugee status review to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The order shall be the same as the order).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 15, 2015, the Plaintiff, who is a national of the Republic of Senegal, arrived at the Incheon National Port of Korea.

B. The Plaintiff received a disposition of non-permission of entry from the Defendant to the waiting room for repatriation on the ground that the purpose of entry is unclear, and filed an application for refugee status by asserting that he/she would feel a threat of personal injury due to religious gambling in the waiting room for repatriation.

C. On March 3, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to return the refugee status review (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a sufficient well-founded fear to be imprisoned, and it is apparent that the Defendant intended to abuse the application for refugee status review by means of a tool for domestic entry.” Thus, the Defendant rendered a decision not to return the refugee status review (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the disposition of this case is lawful or not

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status does not correspond to cases where it is not clearly well-founded, the Defendant issued the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition was in violation of law by deviating from and abusing the discretion of the Defendant on the decision to return refugee status review.

In addition, the defendant does not deliver a written disposition at the time of the disposition of this case and procedural errors that do not present the grounds and reasons for the disposition.

Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked in an unlawful manner due to the foregoing reasons.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related Acts and subordinate statutes.

(c) judgment;

Article 6 of the Refugee Act provides that when a foreigner undergoes an entry inspection at a port of entry and departure, he/she may apply for refugee status, and the Minister of Justice may decide whether to refer to refugee status screening.

Accordingly, Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Refugee Act, which was enacted upon delegation of Article 5(5) of the same Act, stipulates that where a person falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she may not refer to refugee status screening: (a) where a person intends to obtain refugee status by concealing facts, such as submitting false documents; (b) where a person intends to obtain refugee status recognition application because he/she is clearly well-grounded solely for economic reasons; (c) Article 33 of the Refugee Convention, which provides for the prohibition of compulsory repatriation for a refugee status, provides that the requirements under Article 5(1)3 and 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Refugee Act shall be strictly applied; (d) Article 6 of the Refugee Act, which provides for the prohibition of compulsory repatriation for a refugee status screening; and (e) Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Refugee Act provides that a person may not be referred to refugee status screening at a port of entry and departure in order to improve the protection of the human rights of a refugee; and (e) Article 5(1) of the Refugee Act provides the applicant of a port of entry and departure.

In full view of the fact that a considerable reason or obvious reason is demanded, and if a refugee applicant bears the burden of proof of the absence of the reason for decision not to refer to refugee status review, if the refugee applicant bears the burden of proof of the absence of the reason for decision not to refer to refugee status review, it is possible for a refugee applicant to be forced to leave the Republic of Korea without obtaining the opportunity to view the refugee status review, and thus it is contrary to the legislative intent of the above system, the burden of proof of the existence of the reason for decision not to refer to refugee status review under each subparagraph of Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the

In light of the relevant laws and legal principles as seen above, it is insufficient to recognize that this case constitutes cases where refugee status applications are not clearly well-grounded, such as where the Plaintiff wants to obtain refugee status by concealing facts, such as submitting false documents, or solely seeking refugee status for economic reasons, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the same.

Rather, each of the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 2-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5 recognized by the overall purport of the arguments and arguments as follows. In other words, some of the areas of Senegal appears to have a dispute over decentralization among Muslim. The plaintiff was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with labor for three months on August 10, 2013 by using the following facts: (a) Mamaou OO et al., and the plaintiff committed assault to people and damaged the Mamadu et al.; (b) it is difficult to completely exclude the possibility of a dispute over decentralization between Muslim as alleged by the plaintiff; (c) the plaintiff was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of the sentence on August 10, 2013 and was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of the sentence on October 30, 2013; and (d) it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff was the plaintiff's return to the Republic of Korea by using violence against China and 215 years.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition without examining the remaining arguments of the plaintiff.

Judgment of the presiding judge;

Judge Detailed-type

Judges Hong-gion

1) On February 23, 2015, the date of disposition of the purport of the claim appears to be a clerical error in March 3, 2015.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.