‘Korea crossed the line too far’ disgraced singer’s lawyer cries foul after 3rd visa denial

Once a superstar in the 1990s K-pop scene, Korean American singer Steve Yoo strongly criticized South Korea’s recent refusal of his visa request. It is the third time his visa application has been denied.

The singer, also known as Yoo Seung-jun, posted a statement written by his lawyer Ryu Jeong-sun on his Instagram account on Saturday.

According to the statement, the South Korean consulate general in Los Angeles recently refused a visa to Korea for Yoo.

Yoo has now been unable to enter Korea since 2002, when he obtained US citizenship and avoided South Korea's mandatory national service. Yoo's repeated public statements that he would serve in the Korean military fanned accusations that he had gained US citizenship to avoid national service.

The South Korean consular general cited that Yoo’s actions seen after the previous visa denial in 2020, which was litigated in front of the Supreme Court, could deter the country’s interests in national security, the maintenance of law and order, public welfare or diplomatic relations.

The lawyer labeled the decision as “crossing a line too far,” saying it was based on public sentiment against Yoo, not on the law, thereby violating Yoo’s human rights and eroding the rule of law in Korea.

The lawyer also said the authority’s action runs counter to Korean law in obliging the government to decide in compliance with the ruling when the court reverses a government decision.

Yoo contested the government's decision to deny him visa in 2015 and 2020. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor in all the lawsuits, saying the law that was in force when Yoo first applied for the visa stipulated that ethnic Koreans who were exempted from military service for renouncing Korean nationality could obtain the F-4 visa for Korean expatriates from the age of 38.

However, South Korean law does not allow appeals that seek certain decisions by the government, but only revocation of a decision, thereby enabling the government to make the same decision again with a different reason that had not been litigated in the court.