1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for refugee status recognition to the Defendant on January 23, 2014 while entering the Republic of Man (C-3 and 30 days of stay) for a short-term visit visa (C-3 and 30 days of stay).

On January 15, 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 January 23, 2015, but the said objection was dismissed on September 24, 2015.

【In the absence of any dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition as indicated in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 was admitted as a party member on around 1984, the Plaintiff became an electrical engineer and served as a DNA member belonging to the Ministry of Transport and Transportation, and around around 2008, he was admitted as a party member to the Universal Democratic Union de de de lavered (Uuine, UFDG).

Since then, the plaintiff actively worked as a member of the above political party and participated in the anti-government demonstration, which has been arrested for about 20 times or more.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even if the plaintiff's return to Nice is highly likely to be harmful due to the past past political activity.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to view that there is a well-founded fear of persecution to the Plaintiff, taking into account the following circumstances, which can be seen when adding the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 4, and 5 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings, the instant disposition is lawful since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

If it is difficult to submit objective evidence, the specificity of refugee recognition cases is sufficient.