Will a Suspended Sentence Still Get Me Deported? The Difference Between Article 24(4)(ri) and 24(4)(chi)

You stood in court, heard the judge suspend the execution of the whole sentence, and finally let your shoulders drop. Some weeks later a letter arrives from the immigration authorities, and the family is back where it started. A suspended sentence is a genuinely important result: it means you do not go to prison. But measured on a different scale, the scale of your status of residence (在留資格), drug cases behave differently. The reason lies in how one line of the statute is written, and this article explains that difference as plainly as we can.

Key points

• The exclusion for suspended sentences sits in the proviso to Article 24, item 4, sub-item (ri) (入管法24条4号リ). Sub-item (chi) (4号チ), which covers drug offences, contains no such proviso.
• Sub-item (ri) opens with the words in addition to those listed in (ni) through (chi), so a drug case falling under sub-item (chi) lies outside the reach of sub-item (ri) altogether.
• It follows that a conviction in a drug case with the whole sentence suspended still amounts to a ground for deportation (退去強制).
• Being deportable and actually leaving Japan are separate stages, and the route of special permission to stay (在留特別許可) remains open.
• Because the options narrow sharply after judgment, aiming at a non-prosecution decision (不起訴処分) before charges are filed is the most reliable strategy.

Where does the idea that a suspended sentence protects your residence come from?

It is not simply wrong. For many categories of offence it is exactly right. Article 24(4)(ri) makes deportable a person sentenced to life imprisonment or to imprisonment (拘禁刑, the unified custodial sentence introduced in June 2025) exceeding one year, and its proviso then removes from that scope anyone whose sentence has been suspended in whole, and anyone given a partially suspended sentence where the unsuspended portion is one year or less.

So where sub-item (ri) is in play, a suspended sentence does mean that this ground for deportation does not arise. Over time that experience hardened into a general rule of thumb, suspended sentence equals safe residence, and it circulates in good faith within communities of people holding the same status of residence.

The statute, however, allocates different sub-items to different offences. Drug offences do not ride on sub-item (ri).

Why does sub-item (chi) have no proviso?

Article 24(4)(chi) makes deportable a person who, on or after 1 November 1951, has been convicted of violating 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, or Part II, Chapter 14 of the Penal Code. There is no limit by type of sentence, no limit by length of sentence, and no exclusion for suspended sentences.

The decisive point is the opening line of sub-item (ri): in addition to those listed in (ni) through (chi). Sub-items (ni) through (chi) cover passport offences, certain offences under the immigration statute, unauthorised activity, serious sentences imposed on juveniles, and drugs. Anyone falling within them is expressly placed outside the territory that sub-item (ri) governs.

Put diagrammatically, a person in a drug case enters the deportation process through the door marked sub-item (chi). The suspended-sentence exclusion is fixed to the neighbouring door, sub-item (ri), and simply does not lie on the route. The answer to the question but my sentence was suspended, so why is this happening is found not in the facts of the case but in how the sub-items are allocated.

What actually happens after a suspended sentence

Once the conviction is final and the person is released from the criminal process, the immigration authorities may begin a violation investigation into a foreign national who is deportable. Holding a status of residence already does not place you outside that flow, so long as Article 24(4)(chi) applies.

There is, though, something to hold on to here. Being deportable and actually leaving Japan are, in law, two separate stages. Article 50 of the immigration statute allows the Minister of Justice to grant special permission to stay even to a person who is subject to deportation, and Article 50(5) sets out by statute the factors to be considered: the reasons for wishing to stay, family circumstances, conduct, the circumstances in which the person came to Japan, the length of residence, the person's legal status during that time, the facts giving rise to the ground for deportation, and the need for humanitarian consideration.

Just as importantly, Article 24(4)(chi) is not among the categories to which the proviso to Article 50(1) attaches a heightened requirement. That proviso applies to people sentenced to life imprisonment or to imprisonment exceeding one year (excluding whole suspension and similar cases), and to people falling under Article 24, items 3-2 and 3-3, and sub-items (ha) and (o) through (yo) of item 4. Unless the sentence is a custodial term exceeding one year actually to be served, therefore, a drug case is assessed for special permission to stay within the ordinary framework. For someone who has received a suspended sentence, that is no small foothold.

So where should the fight actually take place?

Seen through the lens of protecting your residence, the decisive stage is not the judgment but the decision whether to charge at all. Sub-item (chi) requires a conviction; where the case ends in a non-prosecution decision, that requirement is never satisfied. What we call our non-prosecution first approach follows directly from this structure.

Ordinary criminal practice sets the goal at avoiding a custodial term and securing a suspended sentence. Carry that goal over unchanged into a foreign national's drug case, and you risk losing the thing that matters most, the foundation of the client's life here. Preparation moves steadily towards trial without reference to how the immigration statute is built, and the status of residence is lost at the end of it. That sequence does happen.

We design the defence in three lines. The first is a non-prosecution decision in the criminal case, examining whether the elements of the offence are made out, whether the requisite intent existed, and whether the evidence was lawfully gathered. The second is to contest, in the deportation process itself, whether the ground for deportation is made out at all. The third is special permission to stay, building up each of the factors in Article 50(5) and analysing the past grants published over the years by the Immigration Services Agency (出入国在留管理庁). Even for someone who has already been sentenced, the second and third lines remain.

How our office works, and matters we have handled

At Funado International Law Office, attorney Daisuke Matsumura handles every stage personally, from the first detention visit through to the close of trial, and 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 on your side throughout the criminal process. For languages other than Chinese, we arrange an interpreter to suit the case. After the criminal process ends, we work with an affiliated administrative scrivener on renewals and changes of status of residence.

On pre-charge work, we obtained a non-prosecution decision for a woman in her twenties alleged to have withdrawn money as part of a specialised fraud operation, by presenting her state of mind in the round. In another matter, a client re-arrested several times as a collector in a specialised fraud case obtained non-prosecution decisions on every count, through careful handling of the interrogations, formal objections to improper questioning, and patient presentation of the evidence and argument.

On the residence side, we acted for a person who had lost their status of residence and was arrested and prosecuted for unlawful residence. The marriage and the acknowledgment of the child were incomplete and the application was initially refused; we negotiated with the authorities until the family relationships were formally established, gathered favourable evidence in conditions where official documents were scarce, and, through analysis of past grants, obtained special permission to stay on a single application.

A suspended sentence carries real weight as the outcome of a criminal case. Measured against residence, however, and in drug cases alone, that weight does not carry across. Understanding the mismatch early is where thinking about the next move begins. 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 judgment has already been given in your case, routes still remain. Take it calmly, and check the order in which things have to be done.

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