Engineer / Specialist in Humanities / International Services Staff Arrested for Drugs: Keeping Both Your Job and Your Status of Residence

When someone employed by a Japanese company on an engineer / specialist in humanities / international services (技術・人文知識・国際業務) status of residence (在留資格) becomes involved in a drug case, two foundations wobble at once: employment and the right to remain. For the individual it is their whole life; for the employer it is staffing and reputation. Both are pushed to make decisions in very little time. Here we look at the structure specific to this status of residence and then work through what the employee, and the HR team, each need to consider.

Key points

• Engineer / specialist in humanities / international services 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, Article 24, item 4(chi) operates on a guilty verdict alone, without regard to the Appendix I / Appendix II (別表第一・別表第二) distinction.
• Article 24, item 4-2, which applies on top for Appendix I holders, concerns certain Penal Code and comparable offences; drug offences fall under item 4(chi), not that provision.
• There are two routes by which residence can be lost: a ground for deportation (退去強制), and the conduct assessment carried out at renewal.
• Among people arrested in 2025 in cases involving foreign nationals who had come to Japan, 1,069, or 8.4 per cent, held the engineer / specialist in humanities / international services status (National Police Agency).

Where does this status of residence sit?

It is one of the statuses listed in Appendix I of the Immigration Act, granted by reference to the activity carried on in Japan. A period of stay is fixed, and residence continues through obtaining permission to renew. That is structurally different from Appendix II statuses such as permanent resident (永住者) or spouse or child of a Japanese national, 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. It does not apply to holders of an Appendix II status.

Drug offences, though, are outside the scope of that item. For drugs, Article 24, item 4(chi) applies irrespective of the status of residence held. Holding a work-related status neither helps nor hurts on this point.

What happens to my status of residence if I am convicted?

A ground for deportation is made out. The severity of the sentence is not asked about.

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

There is one further route by which residence can be lost: the requirement of good conduct in the examination of an application to renew a period of stay or change a status of residence. Even where the case ends without prosecution and no ground for deportation exists, a refusal to renew means the basis of residence disappears when the period of stay expires. This is a risk peculiar to the fixed-term statuses in Appendix I.

If I am dismissed, do I lose my status of residence too?

Dismissal and loss of a status of residence are legally distinct. In practice, though, they are closely linked.

This status is granted on the premise of an activity carried on in Japan, so if that activity ceases in reality, it counts against you at the renewal examination. Revocation of a status of residence is dealt with separately, by Article 22-4 of the Immigration Act, which is not a mechanism grounded in punishment: it looks at matters such as permission obtained by deception or other wrongful means, or residing in Japan without carrying on the activity corresponding to the status. It is important not to confuse it with the deportation system.

How the employment relationship is handled therefore bears directly on the outlook for residence. Resigning before the facts are settled can leave the door to reinstatement closed even if the case later ends without prosecution. We would encourage you not to rush the decision, and to work through it with your lawyer.

What HR at the employer should keep in view

There are several matters for the company to sort out as well. The common premise for all of them is not to rush to a conclusion.

Information about the case should not be shared widely, even internally. If details capable of identifying those involved leak outside, this harms the employee's rights and creates a separate set of problems for the company. In practice the safest arrangement is to exchange information within the necessary limits through the defence lawyer, with the employee's consent.

• How long detention is likely to last and the extent of the effect on operations
• Whether there is scope to continue employment if the case ends without prosecution
• When the period of stay expires and what documents the renewal procedure will require
• How information is handled internally, and whether any public statement is needed
• Arrangements for contact with the defence lawyer, based on the employee's consent

If I get a suspended sentence, have I won?

For a Japanese client there are certainly situations where a suspended sentence is a full result, because life continues in the community. In a drug case involving a foreign national, it is not.

Because Article 24, item 4(chi) carries no proviso, a ground for deportation arises even with a suspended sentence. The exclusion for suspended sentences operates in the proviso to Article 24, item 4(ri), but that item opens with the words "in addition to the persons listed in (ni) through (chi)", so drug offences lie outside its scope from the start. Build a defence strategy without grasping this contrast and you can end up with a moderate criminal outcome and no right to remain.

Accordingly, we consider that the overriding objective of the defence should be obtaining a decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分) before charges are brought. 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 at the same time demonstrating to the prosecutor who will decide the disposal, in concrete terms, matters such as continuity of employment, stability of daily life, and the supervision available. Alongside that, the record is built with the later stages in view: contesting whether a ground for deportation exists, and constructing the factors set out in Article 50, paragraph 5 of the Immigration Act for an application for special permission to stay (在留特別許可).

How our office works

Funado International Law Office is at 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, and the work is not delegated 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.

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). What is presented, and how, before the disposal is decided makes much of the difference to everything that follows.

In another, a client re-arrested several times as a courier in a specialised fraud operation obtained a decision not to prosecute on every count, through the handling of interrogations, protests against improper questioning, and the accumulation of argument and evidence (B-2). It was the steady work during a long period of detention that produced the result.

Your position at work and your status of residence rest on separate legal frameworks, yet in practice each holds the other up. What you want to avoid is rushing a decision on one side and finding that the options on the other have vanished. For the employee and the employer alike, the place to start is establishing the facts and the likely shape of the procedure. 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