Does the Type of Non-Prosecution Matter for Your Residence? Suspension of Prosecution, Insufficient Suspicion and No Suspicion

People who have just been told by the prosecutor that there will be no charge are relieved, and yet often still uneasy. What do the words on the notice actually mean, and will they be held against me in a future immigration application? The short answer is that whatever the type, a non-prosecution decision (不起訴処分) is not a conviction, so it never reaches the threshold of Article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) (入管法24条4号チ), the provision that makes drug offences a ground for deportation (退去強制). This article sets out what each type means and how it relates to the residence review that comes afterwards.

Key points

• Suspension of prosecution (起訴猶予), insufficient suspicion and no suspicion are all non-convictions, so none of them falls within Article 24(4)(chi).
• In that sense the type of non-prosecution makes essentially no difference to whether a ground for deportation arises.
• In the review of an application to renew a period of stay or change a status of residence (在留資格), however, conduct is a relevant factor, and the substance of how the disposition came about may be examined.
• Between no suspicion or insufficient suspicion on the one hand and suspension of prosecution on the other, there is a difference in how easy the matter is to explain later.
• A criminal record and an investigative record are different things; with a non-prosecution decision, no criminal record arises.

If I am not prosecuted, does that mean I avoid deportation?

So far as the drug-related ground for deportation is concerned, yes. Article 24(4)(chi) applies to a person 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. A non-prosecution decision is a determination by the prosecutor not to bring charges; it is not a guilty judgment of a court. Whether the basis is suspension of prosecution or insufficient suspicion, the requirement is not met.

A summary order imposing a fine, and a judgment with the sentence suspended, are both convictions and therefore both fall within sub-item (chi). The line is not drawn by the weight of the sentence but by the single question whether a conviction exists. That is exactly where the value of a non-prosecution outcome lies.

What is the difference between suspension of prosecution, insufficient suspicion and no suspicion?

Broadly, they differ in the assessment of whether an offence was committed. No suspicion means that no suspicion of an offence is found at all. Insufficient suspicion means that suspicion remains but the evidence is not enough to prove guilt. Suspension of prosecution means that the offence is regarded as made out, but no charge is brought after weighing the circumstances of the offence, the person's situation and what has happened since.

Which type to aim for in a drug case depends on the substance of the matter. Where knowledge of what was being held can be contested, or where doubts remain about how the evidence was gathered, we aim squarely at no suspicion or insufficient suspicion. Where the objective facts are not in dispute, the conduct is minor and arrangements to prevent relapse can be put in place, the focus shifts to building the mitigation that supports suspension of prosecution. The earlier the direction is identified, the better, which is why we take great care to go through the facts thoroughly at the first detention visit.

• No suspicion: no suspicion of an offence is found
• Insufficient suspicion: suspicion exists, but the evidence falls short of proving guilt
• Suspension of prosecution: the offence is made out, but no charge is brought in light of all the circumstances

How does a criminal record differ from an investigative record?

With a non-prosecution decision, no criminal record arises in the sense of a record of having been convicted. What does remain is the record that the person was apprehended by the investigating authorities and that the matter was processed as a case. That is what is generally meant by an investigative record. Confusing the two leads people to be more pessimistic than the situation warrants.

In the residence context, this distinction usually does the work. Whether a ground for deportation applies is determined by the presence or absence of a conviction, so an investigative record alone does not bring sub-item (chi) into play. In the residence review discussed below, on the other hand, there are moments when an explanation of the underlying facts is called for. That is why it is worth being able to describe the matter accurately even after a non-prosecution decision has been obtained.

I heard that you can lose your residence even without a prosecution. Is that true?

For those holding a status of residence with a fixed period, caution is warranted. Even where no ground for deportation applies, if a renewal of the period of stay or a change of status of residence is not granted, the basis for residing in Japan disappears when the period expires. In the review of a renewal or a change, whether the person is of good conduct is treated as relevant, and even with a non-prosecution decision the content and background of the case are not necessarily excluded from consideration.

Cases involving designated substances (指定薬物), the so-called dangerous drugs, land on this route in particular. Designated substances are regulated under the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Act, which is not among the statutes listed in Article 24(4)(chi). A conviction does not therefore engage sub-item (chi) directly, but it may weigh against the person when conduct is assessed at renewal, and a custodial sentence exceeding one year to be served raises the separate question of Article 24(4)(ri).

What to put in order after obtaining a non-prosecution decision

Once you receive notice of the decision, we recommend first confirming its content in writing. From there, with the timing of the renewal application in view, we organise the material that evidences your work and daily life. Being able to show concretely what has changed since the case is what gives the later review its persuasive force.

For special permission to stay (在留特別許可), the cases of permission and refusal published by the Immigration Services Agency (出入国在留管理庁) since 2004 are an important guide. They are an accumulated body of precedents in which the administration itself found permission appropriate, and they support the argument that treating this case differently, when permission has been granted on comparable facts, raises a problem under the equality principle in Article 14(1) of the Constitution. Now that Article 50(5) has put the relevant factors into statute, that argument can be structured more systematically. Nothing here guarantees a result, but how the material is assembled changes the ground on which the argument is fought.

About our office

At Funado International Law Office, attorney Daisuke Matsumura personally handles the matter from the first detention visit through to the end of the process. Negotiating with an eye on which type of disposition is sought, and leaving behind the material that the later residence procedures will need, only join up when the same lawyer carries both.

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. Renewals and changes of status of residence required after the criminal process are handled together with an affiliated administrative scrivener, without a break in continuity.

From matters we have handled

In the case of a woman in her twenties alleged to have withdrawn money as part of a specialised fraud operation, we set out her state of mind in the round and obtained a non-prosecution decision. It illustrates that even where the outward conduct looks difficult, describing carefully what the person actually understood can change the outcome.

In another matter, acting 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 marriage and the acknowledgment of the child were established, gathered favourable evidence in circumstances where official documents were scarce, and obtained special permission to stay on a single application through analysis of past grants.

A non-prosecution decision is the most valuable point you can reach when protecting your residence. The process does not end there, though, so let us put things into a form that can be explained, with the residence review ahead firmly in view. Please note that this article is general commentary only; for your own situation, speak to a lawyer directly. Past matters 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