1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On October 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on March 3, 2014 while entering the Republic of Ghana (hereinafter referred to as “A”) as a non-professional employment visa (E-9) and staying there.

On June 22, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on July 20, 2015, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as December 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's father who asserted the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as stated in Gap's Nos. 1 through 4, Eul's Nos. 1 and 2, was the traditional religious clinic of Islamic village B, and the plaintiff was Muslim, but the plaintiff was a suslim, and the plaintiff was a suslim.

However, in around 191, the father died and the Plaintiff forced the Plaintiff to succeed to his father's status, and the Plaintiff's third villages that the Plaintiff refused to do so are threatening to kill the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though the possibility that the plaintiff might be stuffed due to the above circumstances is high in case the plaintiff returned to Ghana.

Judgment

If the above facts are added to the purport of the statement Nos. 3 and 5 as well as the entire arguments, it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff has a well-founded fear of persecution, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, so the Defendant’s disposition is legitimate. Ghana is 69% of the total population, and the Plaintiff is subject to gambling on the ground that the Plaintiff was married to the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class.