International Students Arrested in Drug Cases in Japan: Expulsion from School, Revocation of Status, and Refusal to Renew

When someone who came to Japan to study becomes involved in a drug case, the problem does not stop at the criminal process. Enrolment, status of residence (在留資格), and the situation the family faces back home all begin to move at once, within a very short space of time. For the student, and for a family waiting for news from far away, few things are harder than not knowing what happens in what order. This article sets out the structure specific to the student (留学) status of residence and, calmly, explains what has to be decided at each stage.

Key points

• Student is a status of residence under Appendix I (別表第一) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法), held for a fixed period and maintained through successive renewals.
• For drug offences, whether the status falls under Appendix I or Appendix II (別表第二) makes no difference: a guilty verdict alone creates a ground for deportation (退去強制) under Article 24, item 4(chi).
• Holders of an Appendix I status face a further ground for deportation under Article 24, item 4-2, but drug offences fall under item 4(chi) rather than that provision.
• Even where there is no prosecution, the route through the conduct assessment at renewal of the period of stay remains.
• If enrolment is lost and study is no longer being carried on, revocation of the status of residence under Article 22-4 of the Immigration Act becomes a separate issue.

How is the student status of residence structured?

Student is one of the statuses listed in Appendix I of the Immigration Act. Whereas permanent resident (永住者), long-term resident (定住者) and spouse or child of a Japanese national under Appendix II are based on personal status or position, Appendix I statuses are tied to the activity carried on in Japan: a period of stay is fixed, and residence continues through successive renewals.

Holders of an Appendix I status are subject to a separate ground for deportation under Article 24, item 4-2 of the Immigration Act. That provision operates where a person is sentenced to imprisonment (拘禁刑) for offences under certain chapters of the Penal Code, or under Article 2 or Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Act on Punishment of Acts Inflicting Death or Injury on Others by Driving a Motor Vehicle, and it applies even where the sentence is suspended. It does not apply to holders of an Appendix II status.

If I am convicted, can I carry on studying in Japan?

A ground for deportation will exist, so the very basis of your residence comes into question.

Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Act makes deportable any person found guilty of violating the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act (麻薬及び向精神薬取締法), the Cannabis Cultivation Control Act (大麻草の栽培の規制に関する法律), the Opium Act (あへん法), the Stimulants Control Act (覚醒剤取締法), the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act (麻薬特例法), or Chapter XIV of Part II of the Penal Code. The item sets no limit as to type or length of sentence, and it contains no exception for a suspended sentence. A fine changes nothing; nor does suspension.

Simple possession of cannabis, for example, carries imprisonment of up to seven years under Article 66, paragraph 1 of the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, and for sentences imposed in 2024 the rate of fully suspended sentences for Cannabis Control Act offences is given as 84.2 per cent (2025 White Paper on Crime). For a Japanese national, a suspended sentence means life continues in the community. For an international student, the difficulty is that this is not where the matter ends.

Losing your place at the school raises a separate risk

Revocation of the status of residence, a mechanism operating on an axis quite separate from deportation, comes into play.

Article 22-4 of the Immigration Act provides that a status of residence may be revoked where permission was obtained by deception or other wrongful means, and also where the holder is residing in Japan without carrying on the activity corresponding to that status. This is not a mechanism grounded in punishment; it looks at what the person is actually doing. If prolonged detention or loss of enrolment means study can no longer be carried on, this route becomes a live issue.

If there is no prosecution, is the problem over?

On the deportation side it matters a great deal. A decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分) is not a guilty verdict, so Article 24, item 4(chi) does not apply.

An Appendix I status, however, comes with a further checkpoint: the renewal examination. When the period of stay for a student status expires, permission to renew must be obtained, and the examination requires good conduct. Even in a case that ended without prosecution, the substance of the underlying facts can be taken into account, so it is not safe to assume that renewal follows automatically from a decision not to prosecute.

For context, of the 12,777 people arrested in 2025 in cases involving foreign nationals who had come to Japan, 1,521, or 11.9 per cent, held a student status of residence (National Police Agency, "Organised Crime Situation in 2025"). What material to assemble for the renewal stage is something to bear in mind from the criminal stage onward.

Why the objective is a decision not to prosecute

One conclusion follows from all of this. In drug cases involving foreign nationals, a defence strategy that treats a suspended sentence at trial as the final objective sets the wrong target when residence is what is at stake.

Because Article 24, item 4(chi) carries no proviso, a ground for deportation arises the moment a guilty verdict is entered. The defence therefore has to be built around obtaining a decision not to prosecute before charges are brought. Situations do arise in which a strategy built without regard to the immigration framework produces a moderate criminal outcome yet costs the client the right to remain.

Before charges are laid, the work centres on examining whether the alleged facts are made out at all, what the person knew about possession or use, and the lawfulness of the seizure, while also demonstrating to the prosecutor who will decide the disposal that there is no pattern of habitual use, that there is a realistic prospect of continuing studies, and that family members and the school are in a position to provide supervision.

How our office works

At Funado International Law Office (3F Fuse Building Main Wing, 3-4-10 Takada, Toshima-ku, Tokyo), attorney Daisuke Matsumura personally handles every stage, from the first detention-centre visit through to the close of trial. As a matter of policy, we do not delegate the work to clerical staff or junior lawyers.

For Chinese, a dedicated interpreter experienced in cases involving foreign nationals is on staff. Separate from the interpreter appointed by the investigating authorities, you can use an interpreter who acts for you throughout the criminal process. For English, Vietnamese, Korean and other languages, we arrange an interpreter to suit the particular case. In student cases, explaining matters to the family back home is essential, and we cover that too.

From cases we have handled

In one case, a woman in her twenties alleged to have acted as a cash collector in a specialised fraud operation obtained a decision not to prosecute after we argued the subjective circumstances in the round (B-1). In cases involving young people, setting out how events unfolded and what the person understood can influence the decision on disposal.

In another, a client who had come to Japan as a tourist lost their status of residence and was arrested and prosecuted for unlawful overstay. Marriage and acknowledgement of paternity had not been completed and the filings were initially refused; we negotiated with the authorities from a constitutional standpoint until marriage and acknowledgement were established, gathered favourable evidence in circumstances where almost no official documents from the country of nationality existed, analysed the immigration authorities' previous grants of permission, and obtained special permission to stay (在留特別許可) on a single application (D-1).

In a student drug case, three clocks run at the same time: the criminal process, enrolment, and the status of residence. Watch only one of them and you may find that another door has already closed. Having an overall map early, and deciding what comes first, matters more than anything else. This article is a general explanation. For your own situation, please consult a lawyer directly. The past results described above turned on the particular circumstances of those cases and are not a guarantee that a similar outcome will be achieved.

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