Rulings on refugee recognition, non-referral decisions and permanent residence of recognized refugees · 29 cases
This is an AI summary of the points published by the court, put in plain language. Always check the original for the exact content and conclusion of the ruling. It is not legal advice and cannot be applied as-is to other cases.
The person who applied for refugee status claimed that family members in the home country had assaulted and threatened to kill them, and that the home country's police took no action after a report. After the Head of the Jeju Immigration and Foreign Affairs Office decided not to recognize refugee status, a lawsuit was filed seeking cancellation of that decision.
What did the court decide?
The court found no materials to support the grounds claimed by the applicant. It also judged that the grounds were a private dispute arising from a family property conflict, and did not amount to a fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, as set out in the Refugee Act. The court therefore dismissed the claim.
The plaintiff had received a refugee recognition decision. That decision was cancelled on the view that the plaintiff made false statements about family relations, sexual identity, and experience of persecution, among other things, when applying for refugee recognition. A lawsuit was filed against this cancellation.
What did the court decide?
The court found that the plaintiff made false statements about family relations, sexual identity, and experience of persecution, among other things, when applying for refugee recognition, and that the refugee recognition decision was made because of those false statements. The court therefore held that the cancellation of the refugee recognition decision was lawful.
A Guinean national who arrived at an airport via a third country applied for refugee status while seeking entry. The head of the immigration office decided not to refer the application to refugee status examination, finding that the requirements under the Refugee Act were not met. A lawsuit was then filed seeking cancellation of that decision.
What did the court decide?
The court found that the decision was an unlawful disposition that deprived the applicant of even the opportunity for refugee status examination without a clear reason. It therefore cancelled the decision not to refer the application for examination.
The applicants, foreign nationals from Tanzania, applied for refugee status, claiming they could face persecution in their home country, including criminal punishment, because of their sexual orientation. The agency that made the decision found that they had concealed facts, such as by submitting false documents, and appeared to have applied solely for economic reasons. It decided not to refer the applications to refugee status examination, finding them manifestly unfounded.
What did the court decide?
The court held that non-referral is allowed only where a simple review clearly shows grounds for non-referral and abuse of the system. It said serious harm or discrimination based on sexual orientation may amount to persecution, and whether there are grounds for persecution is to be decided in the refugee status examination. It found that caution is needed before accepting grounds based only on the entry interview, and that it is hard to conclude the home-country arrest warrant is false. It granted the applicants' claim.
Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3, Russian nationals, applied for refugee status after arriving at Incheon International Airport. The Head of the Incheon Airport Immigration and Foreign Residents Office decided not to refer the applications to refugee status examination, citing cases such as clearly unfounded applications. The plaintiffs sued to revoke the decision as unlawful.
What did the court decide?
The court found that refusing conscription in Russia may support a well-founded fear of persecution if it was politically motivated and expressed a political opinion, leaving room for refugee status. Given their origins, careers and the circumstances of their refusal, it could not be concluded that the applications of Plaintiffs 1 and 2 were clearly unfounded, so the decisions were revoked. Plaintiff 3, a Russian and Kyrgyz dual national who could receive Kyrgyz protection, clearly failed the refugee requirements, so the claim was dismissed.
The applicant said they had been in a relationship with a same-sex partner, that their family found out, and that a few months later the family expelled them from home. They argued that they risked persecution if they returned to their home country and therefore qualified as a refugee. After being refused refugee status, they sued to cancel the decision as unlawful.
What did the court decide?
The court dismissed the claim. The only persecution alleged was expulsion from home for being gay, and the court found this was not persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Even if there were family threats, an adult applicant appeared able to relocate within the home country. After applying, the applicant twice returned home, re-entered Korea, and said in the refugee interview there was no particular problem during those visits. The applicant did not appear to have fled to escape persecution, so the decision was lawful.
The Incheon Airport Immigration & Foreigner Office did not start the refugee status application procedure for a foreigner who had applied for refugee status. It also did not permit the foreigner to enter the Republic of Korea. The foreigner stayed for a long time in the departure hall of the Incheon Airport transit area, a confined space where access to the outside is controlled. A relief request was then filed under the Habeas Corpus Act.
What did the court decide?
The court held that forcing the foreigner to stay for a long time in the departure hall, without starting the procedure and without permitting entry despite the refugee application, restricted physical liberty without a legal basis. It judged this to be the unlawful detention that the Habeas Corpus Act treats as grounds for relief. However, the detention ended while the relief proceedings were under way, so the court found that the legal interest in seeking relief had ceased and dismissed the request as moot.
The case concerned whether, in interpreting the Refugee Act, the Refugee Convention, the Convention against Torture and other international instruments, a foreigner staying in the Republic of Korea has a statutory or reasonable-principle (jori) right to request humanitarian stay permission from the government.
What did the court decide?
The court held that such a right to apply cannot be recognized even when interpreting the Constitution, treaties concluded and promulgated under the Constitution, and international law. It found that the Refugee Act and other related laws contain no separate provision on a right to apply for humanitarian stay permission, apart from the right to apply for refugee status. It also found it difficult to recognize such a right through reasonable principle (jori) rather than statute, and therefore did not accept the plaintiffs' claim that they have the right to apply.
A family who claim they were detained and tortured in their home country for political reasons applied for refugee recognition. The Head of the Gwangju Immigration Office issued a decision not to grant it. The family filed a lawsuit, and in the first trial their claim was dismissed.
What did the court decide?
The court found the family's statements about the persecution fairly consistent and persuasive, and therefore credible. It said the persecution was also supported by objective evidence, and that it is hard to conclude that the situation in the home country had changed so greatly that the possibility of persecution had clearly disappeared. It therefore cancelled the first trial's judgment dismissing the claim, and cancelled the decision refusing refugee status.
This case concerned the refugee status of an Iranian national. During the son's refugee application process, the fact that the person had converted to Christianity became widely known. The person has a minor son who was recognized as a refugee, and there was also a past record of a final loss in a lawsuit to cancel a refugee non-recognition decision.
What did the court decide?
The court found that the conversion was widely known and could attract the attention of the Iranian authorities. It also cited humanitarian reasons, namely the need to protect the person's right to family unity with the minor son, who had been recognized as a refugee. Despite the past record of a final loss, the court recognized the religious refugee status of the Iranian national.
The plaintiffs, a family of nationals of the Republic of Angola, filed a lawsuit. The Head of the Incheon Airport Immigration and Foreign Residents Office made a decision not to refer them for refugee status examination, and the plaintiffs asked the court to cancel this decision.
What did the court decide?
The court found no procedural illegality and no substantive illegality in the decision of the Head of the Incheon Airport Immigration and Foreign Residents Office not to refer the case for refugee status examination. It also found that the decision did not violate the principle of proportionality, and dismissed the plaintiffs' claim.
A plaintiff of Ethiopian nationality applied for refugee status, but the Head of the Seoul Immigration Office issued a refugee non-recognition decision. A lawsuit was filed against that decision.
What did the court decide?
The court examined the political situation in Ethiopia, the ruling party's surveillance of its citizens, the plaintiff's activities inside Ethiopia and after entering Korea, the surveillance of the plaintiff's family and friends, and the degree of persecution and fear the plaintiff experienced. It found that the plaintiff has a well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of political opinion. It therefore judged the refugee non-recognition decision to be unlawful and revoked it.
An Iranian converted from Islam to Christianity while staying in Korea. This person was caught staying in Korea illegally and received a deportation order, and then applied for refugee status. After the decision not to recognize refugee status was issued, a lawsuit was filed asking for that decision to be canceled.
What did the court decide?
The court found that if the person were forcibly deported to Iran, there would be a risk of exposure to physical and mental harm. Therefore, the plaintiff won the case to cancel the refugee non-recognition decision.
The plaintiff is a Chinese national. The plaintiff helped North Korean defectors inside China escape from China, then left China and lived in Laos and other places. The plaintiff later entered Korea to apply for refugee status, and a decision was made not to recognize the plaintiff as a refugee.
What did the court decide?
The court examined the nature of the plaintiff's activities supporting defectors, the record of criminal punishment imposed by the Chinese authorities for those activities, and the content of the plaintiff's activities supporting defectors in third countries outside China. As a result, the court found that the plaintiff is unable, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution because of the political opinion revealed through the act of supporting defectors living in China, to avail of the protection of the country of nationality. Therefore, the court revoked the decision not to recognize the plaintiff as a refugee.
The plaintiff applied for living-cost support for asylum seekers and received a notice of refusal. The notice only stated that the application had been refused. It gave no legal basis or reasons. The notice was sent by mobile phone text message.
What did the court decide?
The court found that the notice contained no basis or reasons at all, so the plaintiff could not know why the application was refused. It therefore violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires reasons to be given for a decision. The court also found that no rule allows refusal by text message, there was no record of the plaintiff's consent, and the case was neither urgent nor minor. It therefore also violated the Administrative Procedure Act provisions on the form of a decision. The court concluded that the notice was unlawful.
A Syrian man applied for refugee recognition. The Head of the Incheon Airport Immigration Office found that the application was clearly unfounded, such as where the applicant comes from a safe country or arrived from a safe country, or seeks refugee recognition solely for economic reasons. The Head therefore decided not to refer the application to the refugee recognition examination, stating that there was a ground for non-referral set out in the Enforcement Decree of the Refugee Act.
What did the court decide?
The court cancelled the decision of the Head of the Incheon Airport Immigration Office not to refer the application to the refugee recognition examination.
A decision was made not to review a refugee status application. A lawsuit was then filed seeking to cancel that decision.
What did the court decide?
The court found that the refugee application was not a case that was clearly without grounds. It held that the decision not to review it was wrong and cancelled that decision.
A Liberian national applied for refugee status. The head of the immigration office made a decision not to refer the application for refugee status examination. A lawsuit was filed to cancel this decision.
What did the court decide?
The court found that the refugee application was not one that is clearly without grounds under the Enforcement Decree of the Refugee Act. Therefore, the court cancelled the immigration office head's decision not to refer the application for refugee status examination.
A foreign national from Liberia applied for refugee status with the head of the Gwangju Immigration Office. The person claimed that, because their mother is the No. 2 figure in a secret society that carries out female genital mutilation, they would undergo it if returned to Liberia. After the head of the Gwangju Immigration Office rejected the application, a lawsuit was filed to cancel that decision.
What did the court decide?
The court found the rejection of the refugee application lawful, for the following reasons. The applicant stayed a long time in another country before entering Korea but did not apply for refugee status there. It is hard to conclude that the applicant would certainly undergo female genital mutilation if returned to Liberia. The applicant appears able to ask the Liberian government for protection.
A deportation order was issued against a person who had applied for refugee recognition, right after the application, and a lawsuit was filed against it. The agency that issued the order argued that it would not actually carry out the deportation order until the lawsuit over refugee status was over.
What did the court decide?
The court found the deportation order unlawful because it went beyond and abused discretionary power. It said that if the order would not be carried out until the lawsuit ended, it is hard to find any benefit in issuing the order before then. Since the order can be issued and carried out promptly once the refusal of refugee recognition becomes final, the court found that the public interest need to issue the order right after the application is not great.
A foreign national from Pakistan applied for refugee recognition but was refused, and an objection filed with the Minister of Justice was also dismissed. The person, a Shia Muslim, claimed to have been shot at and threatened with death by a radical Sunni Muslim group, and said there is a risk of persecution because of religion if returned. The person therefore filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the refugee non-recognition decision.
What did the court decide?
The court dismissed the claim. It found the evidence insufficient to recognize that the person cannot receive the protection of the home country because of a well-founded fear of persecution on religious grounds. It held that there was no evidence to conclude that the people who made the threats were that Sunni group, that Pakistan has a judicial system through which harm can be remedied, and that the person could avoid the threats by moving to another area. The court also said the motive for the refugee application was doubtful.
A lawsuit was filed against a decision denying refugee status. The applicant made a public statement of conscience on August 1, 2012, and also took part in activities related to North Korean defectors. The situation in China related to these activities was also addressed.
What did the court decide?
The court considered the public statement of conscience, the activities related to North Korean defectors, and the situation in China together. As a result, it found a well-founded fear that the applicant could be persecuted on account of political opinion. The court therefore held that the decision denying refugee status was unlawful and had to be revoked.
A member of an opposition party in the Democratic Republic of the Congo applied for recognition as a refugee. A decision not to recognize refugee status was issued, and a lawsuit was filed seeking to cancel that decision.
What did the court decide?
The court cancelled the decision not to recognize refugee status. It found that the applicant applied for refugee status soon after entering the country, and that the applicant's statements were consistent and matched the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It also considered that the human rights situation in the country remains poor and that the government suppressed opposition supporters around the 2011 elections. Taking these together, the court determined that the applicant is a refugee under the Immigration Control Act.
A foreign national arrived at an airport and, during entry procedures, applied for refugee status, saying their life was threatened because they did not comply with forced conscription. The head of the immigration office decided not to conduct a refugee status examination, on the grounds that it was hard to recognize a clear and credible reason to refer the case to examination and that the applicant had consistently given false statements. On the same day, the office also decided to refuse entry.
What did the court decide?
The court set aside the decision not to conduct the refugee status examination. It found that such a decision may be made only exceptionally and only on formal grounds, not on grounds that weigh the substance. It also found that this case was not sufficiently shown to be one where facts were concealed by false documents or the like, or a clearly unfounded application.
The Iranian plaintiff engaged in anti-government political activities in Korea and also converted to another religion. A decision was made not to recognize the plaintiff as a refugee, and a lawsuit was filed against that decision.
What did the court decide?
The court found that the plaintiff's anti-government activities in Korea were enough to attract the attention of the Iranian government. It also noted that the Iranian government tracks down and persecutes even people who criticize it from abroad, and that this persecution is still continuing as of recently. The court therefore found that the plaintiff was likely to be persecuted because of those activities if returned to Iran, and revoked the decision refusing refugee status.
A foreign national who applied for refugee status at Incheon Airport received a decision denying entry. The person filed an administrative lawsuit against the decision not to refer the case for refugee status review. From the day of arrival, the person could not leave the airport repatriation waiting room and stayed there eating chicken burgers, cola and similar food, without proper bedding.
What did the court decide?
The court held that a foreign national denied entry can also seek relief under the Habeas Corpus Act. It found that the claimant in the repatriation waiting room is a person detained under the Act, and that both the Airline Operators Committee and the Immigration Office are parties that detained the claimant. The court found the detention unlawful, stating that there is no legal basis for establishing and operating the repatriation waiting room and that an administrative purpose does not remove the unlawfulness.
A woman claimed she was persecuted in her home country for being gay and sued to be recognized as a refugee. Villagers warned her family to drive her out of the village, and soon after, a fire broke out at the house and family members died. She was suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
What did the court decide?
Refugee status requires a well-founded fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Persecution means threats to life, body, or freedom, or serious violations of human dignity and discrimination. The court considered a bill in her home country punishing homosexual acts, attempts, and promotion, up to death; the beating death of a gay-rights activist; and her own harm. It found she risked persecution as a gay woman if she returned and met the requirements.
The plaintiff, from the Luo people of Kenya, claimed that after her husband died, his brothers and others forced her to have sexual relations with another man under the wife inheritance custom, a Luo tradition. She stated that they assaulted and threatened her when she refused, and she applied for refugee recognition on the grounds of a fear of persecution.
What did the court decide?
The court held that the plaintiff's application for refugee recognition is to be granted.
The plaintiffs, Nigerian nationals, entered Korea in 2006 and then applied to the Minister of Justice for refugee recognition. The Minister of Justice did not recognize them as refugees, stating that it could not be found that they had a well-founded fear of persecution, which is a requirement for refugee status. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking cancellation of this decision.
What did the court decide?
The appellate court found that the submitted evidence and the results of the fact-finding inquiries alone were not enough to conclude that the plaintiffs, who claimed to be ordinary members of an organization, had a well-founded fear of persecution by the Nigerian government. It also found no other evidence to establish this. It therefore held that the first-instance judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claim was correct, and dismissed all appeals.
This collects 29 rulings on Rulings on refugee recognition, non-referral decisions and permanent residence of recognized refugees. Each case is laid out as what happened, then how the court ruled.
Can I apply a ruling directly to my own case?
No. A ruling decides the facts of that one case, so the outcome can differ for another case. For your own situation, check with an official body such as the immigration office with jurisdiction.
Where can I read the original ruling?
Each case has a “view original” link to the public post on the Supreme Court of Korea website. KoreaMoa does not reproduce full rulings; it only provides summaries.
