난민비자거절 확정 – 불교집안에서 교회 못다니게 한다면서

난민비자거절 확정 – 불교집안에서 교회 못다니게 한다면서
이 케이스는 난민비자를 신청했다가 거절된 AAT 재심 케이스입니다. 그런데 아무리 비자 신청은 자신이 자유라고 하지만 대한민국 사회가 종교의 자유가 없는 것도 아니고 불교집안에서 자신은 기독교를 믿기 때문에 교회에 갈 수 없다고 하면서 가족과 떨어져 살아야 한다고 주장하는 것은 너무 한 것 같습니다. 그동안 한국인들 난민비자 신청하면 다수의 경우 거절됩니다. AAT 신청을 해도 전쟁이 나서 죽을 것 같은 상황도 아니고 대한민국으로 돌아가면 정치적으로 사회적으로 종교적으로 매장되어 거의 죽을 수 있는 그런 경우가 아니라면 난민비자가 승인될 경우는 거의 없습니다. 그럼에도 불구하고 제가 AAT 재심케이스를 공부하다 보면 조금 억지가 많이 있는 주장을 하지만 AAT에서 그런 내용을 깊이 있게 고혀해주지도 않고 거절 번복을 한 것은 없었고 거절확정이 지금까지 제한 간접적으로 접한 케이스입니다. 그런데 오늘 검토하게 된 이 케이스는 제입장에서 볼때 억지 주장이 도를 넘은 것 같습니다. 한번 아래 내용을 읽어 보세요. The primary applicant states in her application for a protection visa that her family has been Buddhist for many generations. When she was a child she went to church at Christmas and she was scorned by her mother and removed from the house for a few hours. She could only return after promising she would never go to church again. When she became a college student she wanted to attend church but again could not. Therefore she came to Australia and has been attending the church freely without any worries. Her family in South Korea do not know that she attends church. In addition, her family in South Korea object to her relationship with her partner on the grounds that he is ten years older than her and only a high school graduate with no substantial wealth. As her partner was not accepted they could not marry and so have been living in a de-facto relationship. If she returns to South Korea she may not be able to attend church any longer and may have to live separately from her partner. This would adversely affect her, her partner and their children. Placing physical distance between her and her family in South Korea will not make any difference. The second and third named applicants are included in the application as members of the same family unit as the primary applicant without claims of their own. 그리고 애초에 청문회에 나올 생각도 없다고 하면서 장관탄원을 위한 발판으로 삼을 예정인 것 같습니다만 글쎄요. The delegates decision which the applicants have provided to the Tribunal indicates that the primary applicant was scheduled to attend a protection visa interview with the Department on 21 April 2016 but declined to attend as she was aware that there was little prospect that her claims would meet the criterion for a Protection visa. She indicated instead that she would like the chance to apply for Ministerial intervention in the future on the basis that she has a minor Australian citizen child. As noted above, the applicant similarly declined to attend an interview with the Tribunal and again expressed the view that she would like to apply for Ministerial intervention in the future. 집안이 교회가는 것을 반대하는 것을 종교적으로 죽음을 당하는 것도 아니고 그런 사회도 아니고요 그런 것을 claim 한다는 것 자체가 조금 …. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm for reason of her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social or political opinion, if she returns to South Korea now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal finds she does not have a well-founded fear of persecution and therefore does not meet the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) of the Act for a protection visa. 결정은 거절 확정입니다. DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas AAT재심 원문보기 물맑은 호주이민닷컴 이민법무사(0208335) 신순철

이 케이스는 난민비자를 신청했다가 거절된 AAT 재심 케이스입니다.

그런데 아무리 비자 신청은 자신이 자유라고 하지만

대한민국 사회가 종교의 자유가 없는 것도 아니고

불교집안에서 자신은 기독교를 믿기 때문에 교회에 갈 수 없다고 하면서 가족과 떨어져 살아야 한다고 주장하는 것은 너무 한 것 같습니다.

그동안 한국인들 난민비자 신청하면 다수의 경우 거절됩니다.

AAT 신청을 해도 전쟁이 나서 죽을 것 같은 상황도 아니고 대한민국으로 돌아가면 정치적으로 사회적으로 종교적으로 매장되어 거의 죽을 수 있는 그런 경우가 아니라면 난민비자가 승인될 경우는 거의 없습니다.

그럼에도 불구하고 제가 AAT 재심케이스를 공부하다 보면 조금 억지가 많이 있는 주장을 하지만 AAT에서 그런 내용을 깊이 있게 고혀해주지도 않고 거절 번복을 한 것은 없었고 거절확정이 지금까지 제한 간접적으로 접한 케이스입니다.

그런데 오늘 검토하게 된 이 케이스는 제입장에서 볼때 억지 주장이 도를 넘은 것 같습니다. 한번 아래 내용을 읽어 보세요.

The primary applicant states in her application for a protection visa that her family has been Buddhist for many generations. When she was a child she went to church at Christmas and she was scorned by her mother and removed from the house for a few hours. She could only return after promising she would never go to church again.
When she became a college student she wanted to attend church but again could not. Therefore she came to Australia and has been attending the church freely without any worries. Her family in South Korea do not know that she attends church.
In addition, her family in South Korea object to her relationship with her partner on the grounds that he is ten years older than her and only a high school graduate with no substantial wealth. As her partner was not accepted they could not marry and so have been living in a de-facto relationship.
If she returns to South Korea she may not be able to attend church any longer and may have to live separately from her partner. This would adversely affect her, her partner and their children. Placing physical distance between her and her family in South Korea will not make any difference.
The second and third named applicants are included in the application as members of the same family unit as the primary applicant without claims of their own.

그리고 애초에 청문회에 나올 생각도 없다고 하면서 장관탄원을 위한 발판으로 삼을 예정인 것 같습니다만 글쎄요.

The delegates decision which the applicants have provided to the Tribunal indicates that the primary applicant was scheduled to attend a protection visa interview with the Department on 21 April 2016 but declined to attend as she was aware that there was little prospect that her claims would meet the criterion for a Protection visa. She indicated instead that she would like the chance to apply for Ministerial intervention in the future on the basis that she has a minor Australian citizen child.
As noted above, the applicant similarly declined to attend an interview with the Tribunal and again expressed the view that she would like to apply for Ministerial intervention in the future.

집안이 교회가는 것을 반대하는 것을 종교적으로 죽음을 당하는 것도 아니고 그런 사회도 아니고요 그런 것을 claim 한다는 것 자체가 조금 ….

In the circumstances, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm for reason of her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social or political opinion, if she returns to South Korea now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal finds she does not have a well-founded fear of persecution and therefore does not meet the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) of the Act for a protection visa.

결정은 거절 확정입니다.

DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas

AAT재심 원문보기

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사(0208335)

신순철

목록보기

최신이민정보

난민비자거절 확정 – 불교집안에서 교회 못다니게 한다면서