On the day the Constitutional Petition Law was promulgated, a Syrian national living in South Korea lodged the first case with the Constitutional Court, requesting the annulment of a court ruling that refused to rectify a forced deportation order against him. At 12:10 AM, just ten minutes after the law took effect, the petition was filed online by an individual identified as Mr. A, who entered South Korea in 2013 fleeing civil war and had been running a business related to automotive parts under a humanitarian status. However, after his permit for external activities expired, he was sentenced to one year in prison for violating immigration laws and subsequently faced a deportation order that separated him from his family and resulted in his expulsion to a third country.

Mr. A's legal representatives argue that the court's ruling clearly violates constitutional and legal protections, infringing upon his fundamental rights. The petition claims that under international agreements, including the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Convention Against Torture, he should not have been forcibly returned to a country deemed unsafe. They assert that the court misconstrued the principles against forced return, leading to a denial of his claims. Following the court's ruling, Mr. A has faced significant threats to his life and well-being, which they argue constitutes a serious violation of his human dignity and family life.

The constitutional petition must be filed within 30 days of a final ruling, but Mr. A's case surpasses this timeframe since the Supreme Court’s decision was confirmed over two months prior. His legal team contends that the 30-day period is excessively short, particularly for vulnerable individuals, making it increasingly challenging for them to seek judicial relief. This case raises wider questions about the treatment of refugees in South Korea and the adequacy of legal protections available for those facing deportation in the light of international human rights standards.