2020 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2(2) Convention, and it should be of particular interest to other states that are parties to the Refugee Convention but not to the 1954 Convention. 5 The case involves an applicant for refugee status who is an ethnically Armenian man, born in Georgia in 1967. He entered Japan in 2010 with a forged passport and applied for refugee status. He claimed that he is a stateless person and has a fear of persecution in Georgia, the state of his former habitual residence. 6 An administrative disposition 7 in 2011 denied recognition of his refugee status and the Minister of Justice gave the following reasons for the decision: the applicant had not been arrested or detained in the past in Georgia, and the government of Georgia respects the rights of ethnic minorities. 8 In 2014, an administrative review of the 2011 disposition upheld the denial of his application for the same reasons given in the first instance and gave additional reasons. 9 In 2015, the case was brought to the Tokyo District Court seeking to revoke the disposition of the defendant. That is, Japan (the Minister of Justice and others), denying recognition of the plaintiff’s refugee status. At the Tokyo District Court, the plaintiff asserted that he is a stateless refugee who would face a risk of persecution upon his return to Georgia, the state of his former habitual residence, due to his Armenian ethnicity. 10 The defendant argued that the claimed experience of the plaintiff in Georgia did not amount to persecution and that there was a lack of objective evidence showing that ethnic Armenians in Georgia were, as a group, subject to oppression in general. 11 The court accepted the argument of the defendant and denied the plaintiff’s petition. 12 Thereafter, the plaintiff brought the case to the Tokyo High Court again seeking to revoke relevant dispositions. 13 FACTS The plaintiff’s father was an ethnic Armenian and a national of the former Soviet Union. 14 His mother was also a national of the former Soviet Union and Russia. 15 After marriage, the two were living in Tbilisi, the capital of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Georgia. 16 In 1967, the plaintiff was born there and acquired the 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 As a recent comprehensive work on this point, see Michelle Foster and Hélène Lambert, International Refugee Law and the Protection of Stateless Persons (Oxford University Press 2019). Tokyo High Court, Judgment, Heisei 30 Nen (Gyou-ko) No 232, 29 January 2020, 1–4, 13– 16 (‘Tokyo High Court, Heisei 30 232’). The term ‘disposition’ refers to acts involving the exercise of public authority by administrative agencies and is the term used in the standard English translation of the Administrative Procedure Act (Act No 88 of 12 November 1993). For such administrative acts, at art 2(2). Minister of Justice, Notification (11 April 2011) (copy on hand with author); Tokyo High Court, Heisei 30 232, 3–5. In addition to the reasons given in the decision at the first instance, the Minister of Justice accepted the opinion of the Refugee Examination Counsellors who doubted the credibility of the applicant’s claim: Minister of Justice, Decision (19 September 2014) (copy on hand with author); Tokyo High Court, Heisei 30 232, 4–5. Tokyo District Court, Judgment, Heisei 27 Nen (Gyo–u) No 302, 20 July 2018, 2 (‘Tokyo District Court, Heisei 27 302’) 5–8. ibid 11–13. Tokyo District Court, Heisei 27 302, 20–28. Tokyo High Court, Heisei 30, 232, 1–5. ibid 8–9. ibid 9. ibid 8. 318