logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.10.01 2014구합7589
난민불인정결정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Details of the disposition

On August 29, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the country of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as "Pakic Republic"), and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on October 11, 201, after entering the country of short-term (C-2, 90 days) sojourn status.

The defendant, on October 1, 2013, promulgated with sufficient grounds for persecution (the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply)

) On the ground that Article 2 Subparag. 3 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees cannot be deemed to exist (hereinafter “instant disposition”), a disposition for non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant on October 16, 2013, but the Defendant dismissed it on April 11, 2014.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case was presented to the village people as contribution or horse to "LeT" (LeT), which is a terrorist organization, (hereinafter referred to as “LeT”), and was tried from LeT.

Plaintiff

In addition, there is also a risk of being killed, such as intimidation demanding money from LeT and being subject to total attack from abduction.

Therefore, even though there was a well-founded fear from the LeT's staff when the plaintiff returned to Pakistan, the defendant did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee. The disposition of this case is unlawful.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Judgment

In full view of the provisions of Articles 2 subparag. 3 and 76-2(1) of the Immigration Control Act, Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees, the defendant is unable to be protected of the country of nationality due to well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, ethnicity, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion, or for reasons of nationality or political opinion.

arrow