beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In the course of the disposition, the following facts: short-term sojourn status visit (C-3) on July 13, 2004, the date of entry into the Republic of Korea of the People of the People of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the date of the application for refugee status recognition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on April 11, 2016, and the decision of May 30, 2016: The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition of the decision of rejection of the decision of December 22, 2016 as of the date of application for objection that there is no sufficient ground for recognition of refugee status rejection: Gap’s evidence, Eul’s evidence, Eul’s evidence, and evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings;
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion is a person of nationality of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter "China"), who is also a lux and Muslim.
However, since the Chinese government pressures Muslim, if the plaintiff returned to China, it is likely that the Chinese government might be stuffed, and therefore the refugee should be recognized.
B. Determination 1) Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act defines refugee status as “any foreigner who is unable to be protected or does not want to be protected by the country of nationality due to well-founded fear to recognize that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion, or is a stateless foreigner who is unable to return to or does not want to return to the country in which he/she had resided before entering the Republic of Korea due to such fear.” 2) In full view of the evidence and evidence as mentioned in the evidence No. 3 as well as the following circumstances revealed by adding the purport of the pleading to the statement in the evidence No. 3, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff “a well-founded fear of being injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the disposition for which the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status
① The Plaintiff is a forged passport on July 13, 2004.