1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On February 24, 2010, the Plaintiff initially entered and stayed in the Republic of Pakistan in the capacity of non-professional employment (E-9) and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on February 21, 2013, which was three days before the expiration of the relevant period of stay (E-9 February 24, 2013).

On February 19, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny refugee status to the Plaintiff on the ground that there was no “probly-founded fears” [see Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012); Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees; Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees]; and Article 1 of the Refugee Status Act];

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on March 10, 2014, but was dismissed on September 30, 2014.

【Fact- without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the disposition of this case is legitimate. The plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case is legitimate, from 2006 to 2008, "PML-N" (hereinafter referred to as "PML-N") was supported by "Pakistan Tree-e-Ssaf (hereinafter referred to as "PTI") from February 2, 2011 to 201 as a result of the influence of the plaintiff's action while working in a political party, and the plaintiff died as a general member of the PT-4 office "on September 13, 2012 when he/she returned to Pakistan, he/she will continue to engage in an assault with the head of PT on September 15, 2012."

PML-N party members threatened the Plaintiff and Maju, “PI support Mad. Mad. Had. Had. Had and Mad,” and threatened the Plaintiff’s family members with 5-6 phone call around October 2012, and threatened the Plaintiff’s family members by making 5-6 phone call around 2012.

As can be seen, the Defendant is at risk of stuffing on the grounds of political opinion when the Plaintiff returned to Pakistan.