As soon as a celebrity within the Nineteen Nineties Ok-pop scene, Korean American singer Steve Yoo strongly criticized South Korea’s current refusal of his visa request. It’s the third time his visa utility has been denied.
The singer, also called Yoo Seung-jun, posted a press release written by his lawyer Ryu Jeong-sun on his Instagram account on Saturday.
In line with the assertion, the South Korean consulate normal in Los Angeles lately refused a visa to Korea for Yoo.
Yoo has now been unable to enter Korea since 2002, when he obtained US citizenship and averted South Korea’s necessary nationwide service. Yoo’s repeated public statements that he would serve within the Korean army fanned accusations that he had gained US citizenship to keep away from nationwide service.
The South Korean consular normal cited that Yoo’s actions seen after the earlier visa denial in 2020, which was litigated in entrance of the Supreme Court docket, may deter the nation’s pursuits in nationwide safety, the upkeep of legislation and order, public welfare or diplomatic relations.
The lawyer labeled the choice as “crossing a line too far,” saying it was based mostly on public sentiment towards Yoo, not on the legislation, thereby violating Yoo’s human rights and eroding the rule of legislation in Korea.
The lawyer additionally mentioned the authority’s motion runs counter to Korean legislation in obliging the federal government to resolve in compliance with the ruling when the court docket reverses a authorities choice.
Yoo contested the federal government’s choice to disclaim him visa in 2015 and 2020. The Supreme Court docket dominated in his favor in all of the lawsuits, saying the legislation that was in drive when Yoo first utilized for the visa stipulated that ethnic Koreans who had been exempted from army service for renouncing Korean nationality may get hold of the F-4 visa for Korean expatriates from the age of 38.
Nonetheless, South Korean legislation doesn’t permit appeals that search sure selections by the federal government, however solely revocation of a choice, thereby enabling the federal government to make the identical choice once more with a special motive that had not been litigated within the court docket.
