ACRC “It Is Harsh to Expel Migrated Woman Who Married a Korean Husband and Gave Birth dispite her duration of stay expired”

- CAAC stressed the need to consider humanitarian circumstances to care for a 2-year-old child and generate income despite her duration of stay expired -

(14th Mar. 2022, ACRC)

A decision was made that it is too harsh to expel a migrated woman, who is making a living in Korea after marrying a Korean citizen and gave birth, for illegal stay as she failed to apply for a marriage migrant visa (F-6).

The Central Administrative Appeals Commission (CAAC) of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (Chairperson Jeon Hyun-Heui, ACRC) invalidated a disposition of the head of an Immigration Office to evict a migrated woman who married a Korean man and had exceeded her duration of stay allowed according to visa exemption (B-1), considering humanitarian circumstances, such as childcare.

Petitioner A, who is an expatriate, came to Korea first in April 2017, and married a Korean citizen while illegally staying after her duration of stay expired. She reported the marriage in November 2018, and left Korea after voluntarily reporting her illegal stay in March 2019 while being in pregnancy. She applied for a marriage visa, but as it was rejected due to her husband failing to meet the income requirement, entered Korea again in June 2019 with B-1 visa.

As she was going through the postpartum period after laboring in August 2019, the petitioner didn’t have a chance to apply for F-6 by September 2019 when her B-1 expired, and stayed uned. While working to make a living as her husband barely had stable income, the petitioner was caught by the police that was reported on her illegal stay, and the district Immigration Office ordered her eviction for violation of the Immigration Act.

The petitioner filed an administrative appeal to nullify the eviction order, claiming that if she was to be expelled her husband who had disabilities had to take care of their young child who needed medical treatment for bronchitis and stomatitis, and her human rights would be significantly violated.

The CAAC judged the eviction order of the head of the Immigration Office was not illegitimate as the petitioner was caught red-handed while illegally staying by violating the Immigration Act.

However, the Commission decided that humanitarian circumstances needed to be considered given the petitioner had to take care of her child under age 2 and was the breadwinner.

The CAAC, therefore, was disadvantage she might suffer outweighed the common good that would stem from the eviction order, and concluded the disposition of the Immigration Office’s head was unfair to deport the petitioner to where she was from.

Chief of Administrative Appeals Bureau of ACRC Min Sung-shim mentioned “the CAAC will continue to be committed to preventing inappropriate administrative dispositions from violating the rights and interests of expatriates staying in Korea.”