Syrian deportation case becomes 1st test of Korea’s new constitutional appeal

An information notice on the new trial-appeal system is displayed at the petition office of the Constitutional Court in Seoul, Thursday. Newsis

A Syrian man facing deportation filed Korea's first-ever constitutional complaint against a court ruling minutes after a landmark legal reform took effect on March 12 — and his lawyer says the case is a rare opportunity to put basic rights and non-refoulement, or not deporting an applicant to unsafe conditions, at the center of judicial practice in asylum cases.

The reform allows a person to ask the Constitutional Court to overturn a court ruling that conflicts with existing Constitutional Court decisions or was reached without following required procedures. If the court finds a violation, the ruling is cancelled and the case is sent back for retrial.

Lee Il, a lawyer at APIL, a Seoul-based nongovernmental organization (NGO) providing legal services to vulnerable migrants, said the case will show whether the new mechanism becomes a meaningful safety net for foreigners facing life-threatening removals or merely adds another procedural layer to an already strained process.

Lee filed the complaint — confirmed by the Constitutional Court as the first under the new system — arguing that deporting the Syrian native would violate his rights to life and freedom, as well as Korea’s obligations under the international refugee law. In his view, the case is precisely what the new mechanism was designed for.

“In ordinary courts, refugee cases have largely been treated as credibility disputes — is this story true, will something very serious happen if he goes back — rather than as questions about which fundamental rights are at stake,” Lee told The Korea Times. “The constitutional appeal forces judges to ask whether a judgment is compatible with basic rights, and that’s exactly where Korean refugee law is weakest.”

He says Korean courts still lack a developed rights‑based refugee doctrine and sees the new system as a chance to build it. He added that courts in some other countries have developed structured analyses of how particular rights can be threatened when a person is repatriated, whereas Korean decisions have too often stopped at asking whether the person might be killed or imprisoned.

The Syrian man, who fled civil war and entered Korea in 2013, obtained humanitarian status and ran an auto parts business. Even after his work permit expired in 2018, he continued operating without renewing it and was later found to have fraudulently invited foreigners into Korea. Eventually, he was convicted and ordered to leave Korea after losing challenges in all three court instances.

Lee is contesting the deportation order because it names only “a third country other than his country of nationality” as the destination. He said this “unsafe third country” strategy sidesteps the ban on refoulement by sending a recognized refugee to a state with no real asylum system, where he is likely to become undocumented and then be removed onward — potentially back to Syria.

Lee said the man faces serious risks to life and freedom from inhumane treatment, raising concerns under the non-refoulement obligations Korea has accepted in treaties such as the Refugee Convention.

“Refugee protection is supposed to shield people from serious violations of fundamental rights, but that framework has never really taken root in our case law,” Lee said.

The case comes at a time when critics warn that the new appeal could be used as a tool for rejected asylum-seekers to extend their stay, adding yet another layer to legal procedures that can already stretch to nearly five years from the initial application to a final court ruling.

The Ministry of Justice, for its part, has taken a cautious stance toward the new mechanism. In a response sent to The Korea Times, it said it is too early to judge the risk of such abuse.

“Meanwhile, we have been reviewing measures to prevent abuse of the refugee system and to reduce application backlogs, including amending the Refugee Act to restrict repeat applications that are not based on any significant change in circumstances and streamlining the examination procedure for such applications,” the ministry said.

The Constitutional Court said that more than 100 ruling‑appeal cases have been filed so far. Asked about progress in the Syrian man’s case, it declined to comment.