Specified Skilled Workers and Drug Cases in Japan: The Effect on Residence and What the Accepting Organisation Faces

When someone working on a specified skilled worker (特定技能) status of residence (在留資格) becomes involved in a drug case, the consequences reach well beyond their own criminal liability. The employment relationship with the accepting organisation, the support arrangements, and the right to remain in Japan all become live at once. For a company that spent time preparing to accept foreign workers in order to secure the staff it needs, responding to a sudden turn of events is far from straightforward. This article works through the structure of the specified skilled worker status and sets out what each side, the worker and the employer, needs to keep in view.

Key points

• Specified skilled worker is a status of residence under Appendix I (別表第一) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法), maintained through successive renewals of the period of stay.
• For drug offences, a guilty verdict alone creates a ground for deportation (退去強制) under Article 24, item 4(chi), whether the status falls under Appendix I or Appendix II (別表第二).
• Article 24, item 4-2, which applies on top for Appendix I holders, covers certain Penal Code and comparable offences; drug offences fall under item 4(chi), not that provision.
• Even where there is no prosecution, the route through the conduct assessment at renewal of the period of stay remains.
• The criminal case, the deportation procedure and the application for special permission to stay (在留特別許可) need to be designed as a single connected whole.

Which category does the specified skilled worker status belong to?

It belongs to Appendix I of the Immigration Act. It is granted by reference to the activity carried on in Japan, with a fixed period of stay and residence continued through renewal. That is what distinguishes it from the Appendix II statuses, which rest on personal status or position.

Holders of an Appendix I status are subject to a separate ground for deportation under Article 24, item 4-2 of the Immigration Act. It applies where a person is sentenced to imprisonment (拘禁刑) for offences under certain chapters of the Penal Code, certain offences under the Act on Punishment of Physical Violence and Other Acts, or offences 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. Holders of an Appendix II status are outside its scope.

For drug offences, however, that item has no role to play. Drugs fall squarely within Article 24, item 4(chi), which operates irrespective of which status of residence is held.

What happens to my residence if I am convicted?

A ground for deportation is made out. The severity of the sentence is beside the point.

Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Act refers to a 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. It sets no limit as to type or length of sentence, and it contains no exception for a suspended sentence.

Simple possession of cannabis, for instance, carries imprisonment of up to seven years under Article 66, paragraph 1 of the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, and the offences of use and receiving administration, newly created on 12 December 2024, carry imprisonment of up to seven years under Article 66-2, paragraph 1. Possession and acquisition of stimulants carry imprisonment of up to ten years under Article 41-2, paragraph 1 of the Stimulants Control Act, and use carries imprisonment of up to ten years under Article 41-3, paragraph 1, item 1. In every one of these cases, a guilty verdict brings item 4(chi) into operation.

What should the accepting organisation or registered support organisation consider?

The first thing is not to rush a decision while the facts are still unsettled. An arrest is one stage in an investigation, and cases do end without prosecution.

On that footing, the following are the matters to work through.

Where the employer and the defence lawyer are working from different information, the worker can end up worse off. In practice the smoothest arrangement is for the lawyer to act as the point of contact, sharing information within the necessary limits and with the worker's consent. Information about the case also needs to be handled with real care, and managed so that details capable of identifying those involved do not spread inside or outside the company.

• How long detention is likely to last and what the effect on operations will be
• Whether the support set out in the support plan can continue to be provided
• Which notifications are required, and at what point
• Whether there is scope to continue employment if the case ends without prosecution
• Arrangements for contact with the defence lawyer, based on the worker's consent

If there is no prosecution, will my renewal be approved?

That cannot be stated with confidence. What can be said is that a decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分) carries enormous weight.

It is not a guilty verdict, so Article 24, item 4(chi) does not apply, and that single point changes whether the case proceeds into a deportation procedure at all. An Appendix I status, however, still has the checkpoint of renewing the period of stay, and that examination requires good conduct. The reasons for the disposal and the substance of the underlying facts can be taken into account, so it is not accurate to think that obtaining a decision not to prosecute means renewal follows automatically.

What is called for, therefore, is preparation: documenting that employment is continuing, that daily life is on a stable footing, and that concrete arrangements are in place to prevent any recurrence.

Designing all three stages as one

In drug cases involving foreign nationals, the following three stages need to be planned from the outset as a single continuous process.

The weight carried by the first line of defence in particular bears no comparison with a case involving a Japanese national. Since the guilty verdict itself is what creates the ground for deportation, we consider that a strategy treating a suspended sentence at trial as the final objective sets the wrong target when residence is what is at stake. Before charges are laid, the work centres on examining whether the alleged facts are made out, what the person knew, and the lawfulness of the seizure, while also demonstrating to the prosecutor, in concrete terms, matters such as continuity of employment and the supervision available.

By way of reference, the suspension of prosecution (起訴猶予) rates given for 2024 are 35.5 per cent for Cannabis Control Act offences and 8.5 per cent for Stimulants Control Act offences (2025 White Paper on Crime). A realistic outlook differs by offence, and the strategy is built with that in mind.

• First line: obtaining a decision not to prosecute in the criminal case
• Second line: contesting whether a ground for deportation is made out in the deportation procedure
• Third line: special permission to stay, by building up the factors set out in Article 50, paragraph 5 of the Immigration Act

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 Vietnamese, English, Korean and other languages, we arrange an interpreter to suit the particular case.

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). Settling early on what to present toward the decision on disposal affects the result.

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. The filings were initially refused because marriage and acknowledgement of paternity had not been completed; 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 on a single application (D-1).

In specified skilled worker cases, two sets of concerns intersect: the worker's right to remain, and the employer's arrangements. For both, rushing to a conclusion before the facts are settled is a poor bet. Form a view of how the criminal case is likely to go, and work through in order what each stage of the immigration process will ask. That measured approach is, in the end, the most reliable one. 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