Article 24(4)(chi) of the Immigration Act: In a Drug Case, the Conviction Itself Makes You Deportable

When someone is arrested over cannabis or stimulants, the question we hear most often, from the person concerned and from their family, is simple: if the sentence is light, can I stay in Japan? Answering that honestly means starting with a single provision of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法) and reading it exactly as it is written. Article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) (入管法24条4号チ) says nothing at all about how heavy the sentence is. This article sets out the structure of that provision as carefully as we can, for the person facing the case, for their family, and for practitioners who need the framework straight.

Key points

• Article 24(4)(chi) makes a foreign national who has been convicted (有罪の判決を受けた者) of violating drug-related legislation deportable, with no limit whatsoever on the type or length of the sentence.
• A fine, a remission of punishment (刑の免除), or imprisonment with the whole sentence suspended all fall within the provision, because each is still a conviction.
• Six statutes are covered: the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, the Act on Regulation of Cultivation of Cannabis Plants, the Opium Act, the Stimulants Control Act, the Narcotics Special Provisions Act, and Part II, Chapter 14 of the Penal Code.
• The provision applies identically whatever your status of residence (在留資格), including permanent resident (永住者), long-term resident (定住者) and spouse of a Japanese national (日本人の配偶者等).
• For that reason, the defence of a drug case must be designed around obtaining a non-prosecution decision (不起訴処分) before charges are filed, rather than around sentencing at trial.

What does Article 24(4)(chi) actually say?

Here is the short answer. Article 24(4)(chi) makes deportable (退去強制) any foreign national who, on or after 1 November 1951, has been convicted of violating certain drug-related statutes. The only thing the text requires is that a conviction exists. It says nothing about which sentence was imposed, or how long that sentence was.

Article 24, item 4 contains a long series of sub-items, running from (i) through (yo). Most of them narrow the scope by reference to the sentence, using formulas such as a person sentenced to imprisonment (拘禁刑), or a person sentenced to imprisonment exceeding one year. Imprisonment here is kōkinkei, the unified custodial sentence introduced in June 2025. Sub-item (chi) carries no such filter. That single difference decides a great deal for a foreign national caught up in a drug case.

When reading a statute, what is absent matters as much as what is present. Sub-item (chi) contains no threshold of more than one year, and no proviso excluding people whose sentence has been suspended. Those two absences define the character of the provision.

The six drug statutes covered

Sub-item (chi) lists six statutes and no others. Put the other way round, a violation of legislation not on this list does not, at least by way of sub-item (chi), make a person deportable. Knowing exactly where the outer edge of the provision runs is of real practical importance.

• The Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act (from 12 December 2024, cannabis is regulated as a narcotic under this Act)
• The Act on Regulation of Cultivation of Cannabis Plants
• The Opium Act
• The Stimulants Control Act
• The Narcotics Special Provisions Act (the Act on Special Provisions for the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, etc. and Other Matters for the Prevention of Activities Encouraging Illicit Conduct Involving Controlled Substances through International Cooperation)
• Part II, Chapter 14 of the Penal Code (offences relating to opium smoking)

Does a fine or a suspended sentence really count?

Yes, it does. Because sub-item (chi) speaks only of a person who has been convicted, the requirement is met whether the sentence handed down was a fine, a remission of punishment, or a term of imprisonment with the whole of the sentence suspended. What matters is the conviction, nothing else.

The point where most people go wrong is the effect of a suspended sentence. The exclusion for suspended sentences sits in a different place: it is the proviso to sub-item (ri) of the same item 4, which covers people sentenced to life imprisonment or to imprisonment exceeding one year, and which expressly excludes those whose sentence has been suspended in whole. But sub-item (ri) opens with the words: in addition to those listed in (ni) through (chi). In other words, a drug case that falls under sub-item (chi) lies outside the territory of sub-item (ri) from the start, and the relief in that proviso never reaches it.

The belief that a suspended sentence means you can stay holds good for many categories of offence. It does not hold for drug offences. We would much rather people understood that difference before judgment than after it.

Does my type of status of residence change anything?

Sub-item (chi) draws no distinction by status of residence. It applies in the same way to Appendix I (別表第一) statuses such as work-based statuses and student status, and to Appendix II (別表第二) statuses such as permanent resident, spouse of a Japanese national, spouse of a permanent resident and long-term resident.

The contrast with Article 24, item 4-2 makes this vivid. That provision makes a person deportable where they have been sentenced to imprisonment for offences under certain chapters of the Penal Code, or under Articles 2 or 6(1) of the Act on Punishment of Acts Inflicting Death or Injury through Dangerous Driving, among others. But it reaches only those residing under an Appendix I status; Appendix II statuses are carved out. In that setting, a status grounded in a person's family or civil status carries a measure of protection.

For drugs, that protection does not operate. A permanent resident who has lived here for twenty years, and a person living with a Japanese spouse, stand on exactly the same provision as someone who arrived last month. Because the asymmetry comes from the architecture of the statute itself, explaining the facts of a person's life will not, on its own, shift it.

This is why obtaining a non-prosecution decision is decisive

If sub-item (chi) requires a conviction, then where no conviction exists the provision simply never fires. Where the prosecutor decides not to bring charges, that is, where the case ends in a non-prosecution decision, no judgment ever comes into being. That is the watershed in the defence of a drug case.

By the ordinary instincts of criminal practice, avoiding a custodial term and securing a suspended sentence counts as a solid result. In a foreign national's drug case, that yardstick cannot be carried over unchanged. A suspended sentence may be a light outcome as a matter of criminal procedure, yet from the standpoint of residence it opens the door marked sub-item (chi). We describe our approach as non-prosecution first, and we place the centre of gravity of the defence in the period before charges are filed.

That period is short: counting from arrest, a little over twenty days at most. Within that window we have to work through the legal issues, whether the elements of the offence are made out, whether the requisite intent existed, whether the evidence was lawfully gathered, and at the same time bring home to the prosecutor, in the exercise of their discretion, how serious the loss of a status of residence would be. A defence built without an understanding of the immigration statute cannot be designed this way.

How our office works, and matters we have handled

At Funado International Law Office (Fuse Building Main Wing 3F, 3-4-10 Takada, Toshima-ku, Tokyo), attorney Daisuke Matsumura handles every stage personally, from the first detention visit through to the close of trial. The work is not passed to clerks or junior lawyers. For Chinese, a dedicated interpreter experienced in cases involving foreign nationals is on staff, so that alongside the interpreter appointed by the investigating authorities you have an interpreter working for you throughout the criminal process. For languages other than Chinese, we arrange an interpreter to suit the case. Once the criminal process is over, we work with an affiliated administrative scrivener so that renewals and changes of status of residence are handled without a gap.

Among matters relevant to this article, we have obtained an acquittal for a client prosecuted under the Stimulants Control Act for possession for the purpose of profit, through exhaustive analysis of the evidence and through questioning of the defendant and cross-examination. We have also handled a large number of cases tried before lay judge panels and serious cases that attracted media coverage.

In another matter, a person who had come to Japan as a tourist lost their status of residence and was arrested and prosecuted for unlawful residence. The marriage and the acknowledgment of the child had not yet been completed, and the application was initially refused. We negotiated with the authorities from a constitutional standpoint, built up favourable evidence in circumstances where almost no official documents from the country of nationality were available, and analysed past cases in which the immigration authorities had granted permission. Special permission to stay (在留特別許可) was obtained on a single application. We have also acted in international criminal matters and in serious cases reported worldwide.

Article 24(4)(chi) is a short provision, but it governs the foundations of a person's life in Japan. Understanding how it is built, and understanding it early, is the first step towards widening the options that remain. Please note that this article is general commentary only; for your own situation, speak to a lawyer directly. The past matters described here turned on their own particular facts, and they are not a guarantee of a similar outcome. If you are worried, please do not carry it alone, and do seek advice at an early stage.

This article reflects the law as at August 2026.

About the author

Daisuke Matsumura, Attorney at Law
Dai-Ichi Tokyo Bar Association (registration no. 59077, admitted 2019)
Funado International Law Office (Fuse Building Main Wing 3F, 3-4-10 Takada, Toshima-ku, Tokyo)
Practice focused on criminal defence for foreign nationals and immigration proceedings.
Results include an acquittal in a Stimulants Control Act case (possession for the purpose of profit), non-prosecution in organised fraud cases, and special permission to stay in cases regarded as difficult.

Funado International Law Office
Website: https://matsumura-lawoffice.jp/
WeChat ID: matsumura1119