Can a Permanent Resident Keep Permanent Residence After a Drug Conviction in Japan?

Permanent residents do not go through renewal of their period of stay. No annual scramble for documents, no waiting on the result of a review. That freedom is probably the most tangible benefit of permanent residence, which is why, when a drug case arises, it feels natural to think: there is no renewal, so there is no review to fail. But renewal review is not the only route by which a status of residence (在留資格) can be lost. For permanent residents and their spouses, this article sets out what operates, and how.

Key points

• Because permanent residents have no period of stay to renew, they cannot lose their status through an assessment of conduct at renewal.
• Article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) (入管法24条4号チ) is indifferent to the type of status of residence, so a drug conviction makes a permanent resident directly deportable (退去強制). The weight of the sentence is not asked about either.
• Article 50(1)(i) lists holding permanent residence as a heading in its own right for special permission to stay (在留特別許可), so permanent residence is the way into the argument at the exit.
• Article 24(4)(chi) is not among the categories to which the heightened requirement in the proviso to Article 50(1) applies, so unless the sentence is a custodial term exceeding one year to be served, the ordinary framework governs.
• Avoiding a custodial term exceeding one year, and above all avoiding a conviction at all, therefore carry very substantial weight under this scheme.

Permanent residents have no renewal, so how can they lose their status?

There are broadly two routes by which a status of residence is lost. One is refusal of an application to renew the period of stay or to change the status of residence, so that the basis for residence disappears when the period expires. The other is falling within one of the grounds for deportation in Article 24 of the immigration statute and being placed in the deportation process.

Permanent residents have no fixed period of stay, so the first route does not arise, and in that respect their position differs sharply from that of work-status or student-status holders. The second route, however, draws no such distinction. Article 24(4)(chi) makes deportable a person convicted of violating drug-related legislation, and places no limit at all by reference to the type of status of residence.

How much does the weight of the conviction matter?

All that Article 24(4)(chi) requires is the fact of having been convicted. There is no limit by type of sentence, no limit by length, and no exclusion for suspended sentences. A fine, a remission of punishment (刑の免除), or imprisonment (拘禁刑, the unified custodial sentence introduced in June 2025) with the whole sentence suspended all fall within it.

The provision people confuse it with is sub-item (ri) of the same item 4. Sub-item (ri) covers those sentenced to life imprisonment or to imprisonment exceeding one year, and its proviso excludes people whose sentence has been suspended in whole, among others. But sub-item (ri) opens with the words in addition to those listed in (ni) through (chi), so drug offences lie outside the territory it governs from the start, and the benefit of that proviso does not extend to them.

Permanent residence has statutory significance at the special permission stage

Here is the part that matters most for permanent residents. Article 50(1) sets out the cases in which the Minister of Justice may grant special permission to stay even to a person subject to deportation, and item (i) is holding permanent residence. The other headings are having formerly held Japanese nationality and a family register in Japan; residing under the control of another person as a result of trafficking in persons or similar; having been recognised as a refugee or as a person eligible for complementary protection; and any other case in which the Minister finds special circumstances warranting permission to stay.

The fact of holding permanent residence is therefore positioned in the statute as an independent heading for entering the assessment of special permission to stay. Where others must work through the catch-all heading of other circumstances, a permanent resident has an express doorway. In building a case, that difference has practical value.

What it means in practice to fall outside the proviso

The proviso to Article 50(1) imposes a heightened requirement in certain cases, confining permission to situations where refusing to allow residence in Japan is found to lack humanitarian consideration in a special way. That heightened requirement applies to people sentenced to life imprisonment or to imprisonment exceeding one year (excluding whole suspension, and partial suspension where the unsuspended portion is one year or less), and to people falling under Article 24, items 3-2 and 3-3, or sub-items (ha) or (o) through (yo) of item 4.

Article 24(4)(chi) does not appear in that list. The mere fact that the case is a drug case does not attract the heightened requirement. So unless a custodial sentence exceeding one year has been imposed to be served, a permanent resident is assessed within the ordinary framework, against the factors in Article 50(5).

Where should the effort go in a permanent resident's drug case?

We design the defence in three lines. The first is a non-prosecution decision (不起訴処分) in the criminal case. Since sub-item (chi) requires a conviction, the provision does not operate where no judgment exists. Within the short pre-charge period we work through whether the elements of the offence are made out, whether the requisite intent existed, and whether the evidence was lawfully gathered, while bringing the gravity of losing a status of residence to bear on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

The second line is to contest, in the deportation process, whether the ground for deportation is made out at all. The third is special permission to stay, where we turn each of the factors in Article 50(5) into documented material: the reasons for wishing to stay, family circumstances, conduct, the circumstances of entry, the length of residence, the legal status held during that time, the facts giving rise to the ground for deportation, and the need for humanitarian consideration. For a permanent resident, length of residence and legal status are themselves powerful factors.

One point deserves emphasis. A defence strategy that treats a suspended sentence at trial as the final objective has, from the standpoint of residence, set its objective in the wrong place. An outcome that looks like a sufficient result in criminal terms falls short of the aim of preserving permanent residence. Only a strategy built on the architecture of the immigration statute can close that gap.

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. 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. Renewals and changes of status of residence after the criminal process are handled together with an affiliated administrative scrivener.

On special permission to stay, we acted for a person who had lost their status of residence and was arrested and prosecuted for unlawful residence. The application was initially refused because the marriage and the acknowledgment of the child were incomplete; we negotiated with the authorities from a constitutional standpoint until the family relationships were established, built up favourable evidence in circumstances where almost no official documents from the country of nationality were available, and, through analysis of the immigration authorities' past grants, obtained special permission to stay on a single application.

In the case of a woman wrongly accused of promoting illegal employment, we obtained special permission to stay, which is without precedent in a case where promoting illegal employment had been found, and we are currently litigating a challenge to the established practice under which intent and negligence are treated as unnecessary for grounds for deportation. In criminal trial work, we 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.

Permanent residence is proof that the administration once recognised the length and the stability of your life in Japan. It is true that this weight does not operate at the entrance to a drug case; at the exit, it is an express foothold in the statute. Knowing what can be argued, and at which stage, is what allows a person to face the process steadily. 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.

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