When a Dependent Spouse or Child Is Involved in a Drug Case: The Effect on the Sponsor, and Keeping the Family Together

A parent or spouse holds a work-related or student status of residence (在留資格) and acts as the sponsor; the spouse and children live in Japan on a dependent (家族滞在) status. When one member of a household like that becomes involved in a drug case, the first two questions are almost always the same: what happens to my own right to remain, and will the family be separated. Under the legislation these two questions have separate answers. Work through it calmly and it becomes clear what needs to be done now. This article maps out that path.

Key points

• Dependent 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), regardless of the Appendix 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.
• The sponsor's own status of residence is not structured so as to be lost immediately because of a family member's criminal case.
• In decisions on special permission to stay (在留特別許可), Article 50, paragraph 5 of the Immigration Act lists family circumstances as a statutory factor to be considered.

The character of the dependent status of residence

Dependent is one of the statuses listed in Appendix I of the Immigration Act. It is granted by reference to the activity of being supported by another, with a fixed period of stay and residence continued through renewal. That is what distinguishes it from the Appendix II (別表第二) statuses, which are granted on the basis of 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, however, are not governed by that item. Drugs fall squarely within Article 24, item 4(chi), which operates irrespective of the status of residence held. Holding a dependent status brings no special treatment here.

As the sponsor, will my own status of residence be affected?

Your own status of residence is not structured so as to be lost immediately because a family member has been involved in a criminal case. A ground for deportation is a matter concerning the person to whom that ground applies.

That said, it would be wrong to say there is no indirect effect. If you hold an Appendix I status yourself, the renewal of your period of stay involves an examination that takes conduct and related matters into account. And if the case changes your employment or living circumstances, that change can show up in the material submitted at renewal.

What happens to the family member concerned?

If found guilty, they fall within a ground for deportation under Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Act.

That item 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 says nothing about the type or length of sentence, and it provides no exception for a suspended sentence. A case ending in a fine is treated the same way.

Even where the case ends without prosecution and no ground for deportation exists, the examination on renewal of the period of stay requires good conduct. It is important to bear in mind that this route remains open for the fixed-term statuses in Appendix I.

What do we build up so that the family is not separated?

With the special permission stage in view, we prepare concrete evidence of the substance of the family relationship.

Article 50, paragraph 5 of the Immigration Act sets out in statute the factors the Minister of Justice is to consider, including the reasons for wishing to remain, family circumstances, conduct, how the person came to enter Japan, the length of residence in Japan and the legal status held during that time, the facts giving rise to the deportation, and the need for humanitarian consideration. That family circumstances appear expressly in the provision matters a great deal in dependent cases.

Simply saying "I have family here" is not enough. Living together in fact, how the household is maintained financially, how day-to-day childcare or nursing is shared, the children's schooling, the extent to which life in Japan has become the centre of family life. These have to be drawn out through concrete material such as photographs, records and accounts from third parties. In drug cases, conduct and the facts giving rise to the deportation are the greatest obstacles, so how thickly the other factors can be built up is what is tested.

Questioning consistency by reference to published cases

Since 2004, the Immigration Services Agency (出入国在留管理庁) has published, year by year, cases in which special permission to stay was granted and cases in which it was refused. They are an accumulation of precedents in which the administration itself concluded that permission was appropriate.

One approach, then, is to extract with care those cases whose circumstances resemble the case at hand, and to argue that where permission has been granted in comparable circumstances yet a different result is reached here, that raises a problem under the principle of equality in Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Constitution. Now that Article 50, paragraph 5 sets the relevant factors out in statute, this argument is easier to structure than it once was.

Because the published cases are written in abstract terms, the comparison has to be made on the basis of essential similarity of circumstances. The outcome depends on the particular facts, but this is, in our view, a perspective worth building into the argument.

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. We do not delegate the work to clerical staff or junior lawyers. Enquiries from family members are also handled by the same lawyer throughout.

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 client who had come to Japan as a tourist had a child with a Japanese woman but lost his status of residence and was arrested and prosecuted for unlawful overstay (D-1). Because marriage and acknowledgement of paternity had not been completed, 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 on a single application.

In another, acting for a woman wrongly accused of facilitating unlawful employment who faced deportation, we are currently litigating a case that asks how far the principles of individual culpability and fault-based liability extend (D-2). In that same matter we obtained special permission to stay in a case where facilitation of unlawful employment had been found, an outcome with no prior example.

When one member of the family becomes involved in a case, it can feel as though your own right to remain is collapsing along with theirs. Under the legislation, however, the person in question and the stage at which the question arises are each different. You can separate them out and take the steps in order. Rather than carrying it within the household, we would encourage you to seek advice early. 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