Revocation of Status of Residence (Article 22-4) and Drug Cases: How It Differs From Deportation

When people come to us about a drug case, the question will my status of residence be revoked and the question will I be deported are often used to mean the same thing. In fact these are two separate mechanisms. For anyone living in Japan on a work status or a student status, the distinction is not a matter of words. The body you are dealing with, the way you contest the matter, and the speed at which time runs are all different. This article sets out where the two mechanisms meet and where they part company.

Key points

• Deportation (退去強制) under Article 24 and revocation of status of residence (在留資格取消し) under Article 22-4 are separate mechanisms with different legal bases and different requirements.
• A ground for deportation arising from a drug conviction is a matter of Article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) (入管法24条4号チ), and is not directly connected to the revocation mechanism.
• Article 22-4 addresses matters such as obtaining a status of residence by deception or other wrongful means, or ceasing to carry on the activity corresponding to the status. It is not a criminal penalty.
• If detention drags on and the person cannot continue working or studying, the basis of residence may be undermined along this separate axis.
• For that reason, even where a non-prosecution decision (不起訴処分) is obtained, steps are needed to preserve the basis of residence, including the relationship with the employer or school.

What is the difference between revocation of status and deportation?

Put simply, deportation is a disposition that removes a person from Japan, while revocation of status of residence is a disposition that removes the legal basis for their residence here. Both can end with the person leaving Japan, but as a matter of law they are entirely distinct.

The basis for deportation lies in the items of Article 24. In a drug case, the relevant provision is sub-item (chi) of item 4: a person who 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. The requirement is met by the bare fact that a conviction has become final in the criminal courts.

Revocation of status of residence, by contrast, rests on Article 22-4, which does not take a criminal outcome as its requirement. It allows a status of residence to be revoked where a statutory ground applies, such as where the status was obtained by deception or other wrongful means, or where the person has ceased to carry on the activity corresponding to the status. It is not a penalty but an administrative measure responding to the loss of the basis for residence.

How does Article 22-4 come into a drug case at all?

A drug conviction as such is not one of the grounds for revocation listed in Article 22-4. So saying that a status of residence is revoked because of a drug conviction is not an accurate description of the system. A conviction is a matter for Article 24(4)(chi) and nothing else.

Why, then, does revocation come up in drug cases? Because the factual situation created by the case can affect the basis of residence along a different axis. Arrest and detention mean that, for that period, the person can neither work nor attend school. If detention is prolonged, or the person is dismissed by their employer or removed from the register of their school, a state of affairs arises in which the activity corresponding to the status of residence is no longer being carried on.

If I was not prosecuted, is my residence safe?

Obtaining a non-prosecution decision is decisive for protecting your residence. Article 24(4)(chi) requires a person who has been convicted, so where no judgment exists this ground for deportation cannot arise. That much can be stated plainly.

It does not follow, however, that the basis of residence is untouched. When you are released after several months in custody, your employer may already have recorded you as having resigned, and your school may no longer treat you as enrolled. A work status or a student status is defined by the activity to be carried on in Japan, so if the foundation for that activity is gone, a problem can arise along the separate axis of revocation of status.

The idea of three lines of defence

We design the defence of a foreign national's drug case in three lines. The first is a non-prosecution decision in the criminal case. We examine whether the elements of the offence are made out, whether the requisite intent existed, and whether the evidence, including any stop-and-question, search of belongings and urine sampling, was lawfully gathered, and within the short pre-charge period we assemble the material for the prosecutor's decision.

The second line is to contest, in the deportation process, whether the ground for deportation is made out at all. Immigration practice has long proceeded on the footing that intent and negligence are not requirements when assessing grounds for deportation. In a matter concerning deportation on the basis of promoting illegal employment, attorney Daisuke Matsumura is currently litigating a direct challenge to that footing, asking whether the principle of responsibility should not also reach deportation as an administrative disposition. Drug cases frequently turn on intent in ways that matter on both the criminal and the immigration side, such as where the person did not know what was inside a package they had been asked to hold, or where knowledge of possession is disputed. This is a live issue, and we cannot tell you in advance how it will be resolved.

The third line is special permission to stay (在留特別許可). We turn each of the factors set out in Article 50(5), namely 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, into documented material. The separate risk of revocation of status is considered alongside this three-part design, from the standpoint of preserving the foundations of the person's life here.

Avoiding the confusion is the first step

Because the names are similar, confusion arises easily. To restate it: a problem arising from having been convicted belongs to Article 24(4)(chi), the deportation framework. A problem arising from having ceased to carry on the relevant activity belongs to Article 22-4, the revocation framework.

Without that distinction, responses miss the mark. Focus solely on the criminal outlook and neglect contact with the employer, and you can win on the criminal side while losing the basis of your residence. Conversely, think only about keeping the status of residence and admit facts too readily in the criminal process, and you invite the heavier problem of a ground for deportation founded on a conviction.

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, without a gap between the criminal and immigration sides.

On the residence side, acting for a woman wrongly accused of promoting illegal employment and facing deportation, we obtained special permission to stay, which is without precedent in a case where promoting illegal employment had been found. In another matter, for a person who had lost their status of residence and was arrested and prosecuted for unlawful residence, we negotiated with the authorities until the family relationships were established and, through analysis of past grants, obtained special permission to stay on a single application.

Revocation of status and deportation run on different tracks. Watch only one of them and you will not notice the train approaching on the other. If you are in Japan on a work status or a student status, we would encourage you to hold in mind, alongside the criminal outlook, the question of how to preserve the basis of your activity here. 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