Long-Term Residents and Drug Cases: Turning Years of Life in Japan into an Argument for Special Permission to Stay

For people who have lived in Japan for many years on a long-term resident (定住者) status of residence (在留資格), including Japanese-descended Brazilians and Peruvians, a drug case shakes the very ground their life has been built on. The children attend Japanese schools, there are colleagues at work, and everything about daily life is here. Even so, Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法) operates without regard to which status of residence a person holds. This article follows the statutory text to explain what happens as a matter of law when a long-term resident faces a drug case, and how the life you have built can be brought into the procedure for special permission to stay (在留特別許可).

Key points

• Long-term resident is a status of residence under Appendix II (別表第二) of the Immigration Act, but Article 24, item 4(chi) applies without regard to the status held, so a guilty verdict in a drug case alone creates a ground for deportation (退去強制).
• Article 24, item 4-2, which covers only Appendix I (別表第一) holders, does not reach long-term residents, but that distinction does no work for drug offences.
• Item 4(chi) is not among the grounds listed in the proviso to Article 50, paragraph 1, so unless the unsuspended sentence exceeds one year, no heightened requirement is imposed.
• Long settlement in Japan, children born and raised here, and a record of employment and tax payment can all be argued in a structured way as factors under Article 50, paragraph 5.
• From the standpoint of protecting your residence, the single most important objective is a decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分) before charges are brought, rather than the sentence handed down at trial.

Even for long-term residents, a drug conviction is a ground for deportation

Let us begin with the conclusion. Even if you hold a long-term resident status of residence, a guilty verdict in a drug case brings you within a ground for deportation under Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Act. The severity of the sentence is not asked about. A fine, a remission of punishment, or a wholly suspended sentence all satisfy the provision in the same way.

Article 24, item 4(chi) covers a person who, on or after 1 November 1951, has been 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, which covers offences relating to opium smoking. All the provision requires is the fact of having been found guilty. There is no limit as to the type or length of sentence, and no provision excluding suspended sentences.

I hold an Appendix II status, so why doesn't it protect me in a drug case?

Because the legislation separates the situations in which the strength of a status of residence counts from those in which it does not. Article 24, item 4-2 of the Immigration Act makes it a ground for deportation where a person holding an Appendix I status 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, among others. That provision does not apply to Appendix II. For long-term residents, this is a genuine breakwater.

Drug offences, however, are a matter for item 4(chi), not item 4-2. Item 4(chi) does not confine itself to Appendix I holders, so that breakwater is simply bypassed. A work-status holder sentenced to imprisonment for an ordinary Penal Code offence and a long-term resident convicted in a drug case are standing on entirely different provisions.

What the statistics show about Japanese-descended communities and drug offences

According to the National Police Agency's "Organised Crime Situation in 2025", 1,502 foreign nationals were arrested for drug offences, an increase of 214 on the previous year. Broken down by nationality and region, Brazil accounts for 229 and Peru for 47, so countries with large Japanese-descended populations appear near the top of the list.

The same source records 12,777 people arrested in cases involving foreign nationals who had come to Japan; by status of residence, long-term residents account for 1,469, or 11.5 per cent of the total. These figures say nothing about any individual, but the fact that members of Japanese-descended communities do find themselves caught up in such cases is something we think should be acknowledged frankly.

• 1,502 foreign nationals arrested for drug offences, up 214 on the previous year (National Police Agency, 2025)
• By nationality and region, Brazil 229 and Peru 47
• By status of residence in cases involving foreign nationals who had come to Japan, long-term residents 1,469 (11.5 per cent)

How much weight is given to years of settled life when special permission is considered?

For long-term residents, the real contest usually lies in how concretely the reality of daily life can be shown when special permission to stay is decided. The tool here is Article 50, paragraph 5 of the Immigration Act, put into express statutory form by the 2023 amendment.

That paragraph provides that the Minister of Justice is to consider 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, and further to consider domestic and international conditions, the effect on unlawful residents in Japan, and other circumstances.

• Length of residence and legal status: residence records, the history of residence card renewals, and the absence of violations such as unauthorised activity
• Family circumstances: children's certificates of enrolment, school reports, written statements from family members, and how caregiving is shared
• Conduct: tax payment certificates, social insurance history, the presence or absence of any criminal or investigation record, and a written submission from the employer
• Need for humanitarian consideration: the children's ages and language ability, and how realistic life and schooling in the country of nationality would be
• Reasons for wishing to remain: a written statement of intent to continue employment, secured housing, and ties to the local community

Building an equality argument from 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 nothing less than an accumulation of precedents in which the administrative authority itself concluded that granting permission was appropriate. Our office maintains a systematic arrangement of these published cases and treats the extraction of comparable categories as the starting point for drafting.

Where permission has been granted in cases with comparable circumstances and no rational basis can be found for treating this case differently, there is room to raise a question under the principle of equality in Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Constitution. Now that Article 50, paragraph 5 has put the relevant factors into statutory form, it has become easier to show, factor by factor, which precedent is being compared with which.

That said, the published cases are written in abstract terms out of regard for personal information, and finding a perfectly matching case is not easy. The argument is built around essential similarity of circumstances. It is not a method that can promise a result, but it is, in our view, one of the pillars supporting the persuasiveness of the submission.

Setting objectives in the criminal case, and how we handle these matters

From the standpoint of protecting your residence, a fully suspended sentence at trial is not the finishing line. It is still a guilty verdict, and the door of Article 24, item 4(chi) opens. The first objective of the defence is therefore obtaining a decision not to prosecute before charges are brought. Within our office we call this the non-prosecution-first approach.

Among the matters we have handled that bear on the subject of this article: a client prosecuted under the Stimulants Control Act for possession with intent to profit who was acquitted following exhaustive analysis of the evidence and careful examination of the defendant and cross-examination of witnesses; a client who had lost his status of residence and been arrested and prosecuted for unlawful overstay, for whom we negotiated with the authorities, analysed the immigration authorities' previous grants of permission, and obtained special permission to stay on a single application; and a case in which facilitation of unlawful employment had been found, where we obtained special permission to stay with no prior example.

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. Having the lawyer personally hold the whole picture of a client's life is what gives the submissions in the immigration procedure their depth.

For Chinese, a dedicated interpreter experienced in cases involving foreign nationals is on staff, so that separate from the interpreter appointed by the investigating authorities you can use an interpreter who acts for you. For Portuguese, Spanish and other languages, we arrange an interpreter to suit the particular case. Status of residence procedures after the criminal process has ended are handled together with an administrative scrivener with whom we work.

Years spent in Japan as a long-term resident take up a single line on paper, yet in reality they are the whole of a person's and a family's life. Translating that substance into words and evidence, factor by factor under Article 50, paragraph 5, is in our view what the procedure for special permission to stay is really about. 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