The Departure Order System Is Not Available in Drug Cases: Reading the Exclusions in Article 24-3

I heard that if I turn myself in to immigration, I can go home without being detained. We hear this from people facing a case and from their families. It is true that the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法) contains a departure order (出国命令) system under which, in certain circumstances, a person may leave Japan without being taken into detention. But the system is not open to everyone, and in drug cases in particular the requirements themselves place the person outside it. So that no one acts on a mistaken premise before presenting themselves to the authorities, this article works carefully through how the provision is built.

Key points

• The departure order system is available only to foreign nationals falling under Article 24, item 2-4, item 4, sub-item (ro), or items 6 through 7.
• Article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) (入管法24条4号チ), which covers drug offences, does not appear on that list of qualifying grounds at all.
• Article 24-3 further requires that the person not fall under Article 24, items 3 through 3-5, item 4, sub-items (ha) through (yo), item 8 or item 9. Sub-item (chi) is caught squarely by that exclusion.
• So a person in a drug case who presents themselves voluntarily proceeds not to a departure order but into the deportation (退去強制) process.
• That does not mean voluntary presentation is pointless, but its role has to be judged within the process as a whole, including special permission to stay (在留特別許可).

What is the departure order system?

The departure order system is set out in Article 24-3 of the immigration statute. For foreign nationals meeting certain requirements, it orders the person to leave Japan of their own accord by a set deadline, without going through the deportation process. Its purpose is generally understood as allowing a person who has come forward voluntarily to depart under a simplified procedure that does not involve physical detention.

The system was designed chiefly with people who have overstayed their period of stay in mind. After a long period of unlawful residence, a person finally steels themselves and presents at the immigration office. For that person, the statute provides a way to move the process forward while avoiding detention.

If I turn myself in, can I get a departure order even in a drug case?

Unfortunately not, and the reason is twofold.

First, the range of people eligible is itself limited. Article 24-3 applies to foreign nationals falling under Article 24, item 2-4, item 4, sub-item (ro), or items 6 through 7. Article 24(4)(chi), which covers drug offences, is not on that list. At the threshold, a drug case is outside the system.

Second, even where another ground also applies, the requirements imposed by Article 24-3 exclude the person. The article requires all of the following: first, that the person presented themselves voluntarily before a violation investigation began, or expressed an intention to leave after it began but before notification of the finding; second, that the person does not fall under Article 24, items 3 through 3-5, item 4, sub-items (ha) through (yo), item 8 or item 9; third, that the person has not, since entering Japan, been sentenced to imprisonment (拘禁刑, the unified custodial sentence introduced in June 2025) for any offence listed in Article 24, item 4-2; fourth, that the person has not previously departed Japan by deportation or under a departure order; and fifth, that the person is reliably expected to leave promptly. The second of these is decisive. Sub-item (chi) falls within the range of sub-items (ha) through (yo), so the requirement cannot be satisfied.

How does this differ from an overstay?

Even within Article 24, item 4, sub-items (ro) and (chi) are treated in completely different ways. Sub-item (ro) covers a person who remains in Japan beyond their period of stay without obtaining a renewal or a change of status, that is, unlawful residence, and it is expressly listed as a qualifying ground for a departure order. Sub-item (chi) covers a conviction for violating drug legislation; not only is it absent from the qualifying grounds, it sits on the exclusion side of the requirements.

The difference makes sense in light of the purpose of the system. The departure order is designed to encourage voluntary presentation and to achieve departure through a simplified procedure, and what it contemplates is a formal breach consisting in the loss of a lawful basis for residence. For a person convicted of a drug offence, the legislature has not provided the option of a simplified departure.

So is there no point in presenting myself voluntarily?

We would not say it is pointless. But the point has to be understood not as a way of obtaining a departure order, but in the context of how the rest of the process will be built.

Even where a person in a drug case proceeds into the deportation process, Article 50 provides for cases in which the Minister of Justice may grant special permission to stay to a person who is subject to deportation. Article 50(5) then provides that consideration is to be given to the reasons for wishing to stay, family circumstances, conduct, the circumstances in which the person came to Japan, the length of residence in Japan, the legal status held during that time, the facts giving rise to the ground for deportation, and the need for humanitarian consideration. It is entirely conceivable that how the person came to present themselves, and how they conducted themselves afterwards, will bear on the assessment of those factors.

The procedural rules also need to be kept in view. Article 50(2) provides that an application for special permission to stay is made by a foreign national detained under a written detention order or subject to a supervision measure (監理措置) decision, and Article 50(3) provides that no application may be made once a written deportation order has been issued. The timing and manner of presenting yourself should be judged within that sequence. What we want to avoid is a person presenting themselves without preparation and, as a result, being unable to make full use of the opportunity to be heard.

Not reaching this fork in the road in the first place

Every branch described above presupposes that Article 24(4)(chi) applies, and what sub-item (chi) requires is a conviction. Where no conviction exists, none of this machinery operates.

That is the reason for what we call our non-prosecution first approach. Ordinary criminal practice measures success by avoiding a custodial term and securing a suspended sentence. In a foreign national's drug case, achieving that goal still leaves you unable to use the departure order system and heading into the deportation process. The goal itself has to be moved back, to the period before charges are filed.

There is a great deal to do in that period: examining whether the elements of the offence are made out, testing whether the requisite intent existed, checking the lawfulness of the process from any stop-and-question and search of belongings through to urine sampling, and setting out, in a form that reaches the prosecutor's exercise of discretion, what the loss of a status of residence (在留資格) would mean for the client and their family. 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, 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 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 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, and we negotiated with the authorities until the family relationships were established, gathered favourable evidence in conditions where official documents were scarce, and obtained special permission to stay on a single application through analysis of past grants. In 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.

The departure order system certainly exists, but the statute states equally plainly that it does not extend to drug cases. Deciding what to do on the strength of a system's name alone can send the process down an order of events that cannot be undone. If you are thinking of presenting yourself to the authorities, please first check which provision your situation actually falls under. 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