Permanent Residents Convicted in Drug Cases: Is Permanent Residence a Gateway to Special Permission to Stay?

Obtaining permanent residence takes years of living in Japan and repeated scrutiny of tax and social insurance records. When a permanent resident (永住者) becomes involved in a drug case, the first question in most consultations is whether even a permanent resident can be deported. The answer under the legislation is, regrettably, that a ground for deportation (退去強制) does arise. But that is not the end of the matter. Article 50, paragraph 1 of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法) expressly names the holding of permanent residence as a gateway to special permission to stay (在留特別許可). This article considers how to connect that gateway to the procedure, following the order of the statutory text.

Key points

• Permanent residents do not need to renew a period of stay, so they cannot lose their status of residence (在留資格) through the conduct-requirement route, but Article 24, item 4(chi) applies to them directly.
• Article 50, paragraph 1 of the Immigration Act expressly names the holding of permanent residence as the first of the cases in which special permission to stay may be granted.
• Article 24, 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.
• Article 50, paragraph 2 provides that an application for special permission is made by a person detained under a written detention order (収容令書) or subject to a supervision measures (監理措置) decision.
• Article 50, paragraph 3 provides that no application can be made once a written deportation order has been issued, so it is important to understand the sequence of the procedure early.

Permanent residents are also caught by the deportation provisions. Let us start there

Even as a permanent resident, a guilty verdict in a drug case brings you within a ground for deportation under Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Act. Holding permanent residence is not treated as something that cancels that out. This is the starting point.

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. The provision says only "a person who has been found guilty": no limit as to type or length of sentence, and no exception for a suspended sentence. Nor is there any wording distinguishing Appendix II (別表第二) statuses such as permanent resident and long-term resident (定住者) from Appendix I (別表第一) statuses such as work-related statuses and student.

What does "where the person has been granted permanent residence" in Article 50, paragraph 1, item 1 actually mean?

Article 50, paragraph 1 of the Immigration Act provides that, even where a person is subject to deportation, residence may be specially permitted in certain defined cases. The first of those cases is where the person has been granted permanent residence.

The paragraph lists five: (1) where the person has been granted permanent residence; (2) where the person once had a registered domicile in Japan as a Japanese national; (3) where the person resides in Japan under the control of another as a result of human trafficking or comparable conduct; (4) where the person has been recognised as a refugee or as a person eligible for complementary protection; and (5) where the Minister of Justice otherwise finds circumstances warranting special permission to reside.

Most special permission cases are dealt with under the catch-all in (5). A permanent resident, by contrast, comes squarely within a case expressly named in the statute under (1). That does not mean that falling within (1) results in permission, since the decision is made according to the factors in Article 50, paragraph 5. Even so, the fact that the legislation gives the status of permanent residence its own place is a foothold when drafting submissions.

Checking the relationship with the proviso to Article 50, paragraph 1

A heightened requirement may be imposed when special permission is considered. The proviso to Article 50, paragraph 1 provides that, where the person has been sentenced to life imprisonment (拘禁刑) or to imprisonment exceeding one year (excluding those whose sentence has been wholly suspended, and those given a partially suspended sentence where the unsuspended portion is one year or less), or where the person falls within Article 24, item 3-2, item 3-3, item 4(ha) or items 4(wo) through 4(yo), permission may be granted only where there are found to be special circumstances such that refusing permission to reside would be found to lack humanitarian consideration.

The point to read carefully here is that Article 24, item 4(chi) is not among the grounds listed in that proviso. The heightened requirement is therefore not imposed merely because the case is a drug case. So long as the sentence is not an unsuspended term exceeding one year, the case is judged within the ordinary framework.

This reading feeds back into sentencing. Whether the unsuspended term exceeds one year matters not only as a criminal matter but as the watershed determining whether the framework for special permission is heightened. Here too is a reason why the criminal defence and the immigration procedure cannot be thought about separately.

In what order do you design the three lines of defence?

For drug cases involving foreign nationals, our office works to a plan of three successive lines of defence. That design is no different for a permanent resident.

The first line is obtaining a decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分) in the criminal case. We scrutinise whether the elements of the offence are made out, whether the necessary intent existed, and whether the evidence was lawfully gathered, placing the weight of the defence work in the period before charges are brought. If no guilty verdict exists, Article 24, item 4(chi) never operates at all. The second line is contesting whether a ground for deportation is made out, and the third is special permission to stay.

• First line: obtaining a decision not to prosecute, the contest of roughly 20 days before charges are brought
• Second line: contesting whether a ground for deportation is made out
• Third line: special permission to stay, entering through Article 50, paragraph 1, item 1 and building the factors in Article 50, paragraph 5

The application procedure, and the deadline in Article 50, paragraph 3

The 2023 amendment clarified the procedure for special permission. Article 50, paragraph 2 provides that an application is made to the Minister of Justice by a foreign national detained under a written detention order or subject to a supervision measures decision, and Article 50, paragraph 4 provides that special permission cannot be granted until the person has accepted the findings under Article 47, paragraph 3 or the determination under Article 48, paragraph 8, or until after the decision under Article 49, paragraph 3.

Article 50, paragraph 3 then states expressly that no application for special permission may be made once a written deportation order has been issued. In other words, the application has to be completed before the order is issued. This is not said in order to alarm anyone, but we would ask you to understand early on that the procedure has a sequence and cut-off points.

Article 50, paragraph 10 provides that where permission is refused, notice must promptly be given in writing with reasons. That reasons are given in writing also means their soundness can be examined in later proceedings.

How our office works, and matters we have handled

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. That is because the facts established in the criminal process become, directly, the foundation of the submissions for special permission to stay.

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 other languages we arrange an interpreter to suit the particular case, and status of residence procedures after the criminal process has ended are handled together with an administrative scrivener with whom we work.

By way of example, we acted for a client who had lost his status of residence and been arrested and prosecuted for unlawful overstay; by negotiating with the authorities to put his family relationships in order and analysing the immigration authorities' previous grants of permission, we obtained special permission to stay on a single application. In another matter, a client re-arrested several times as a courier in a specialised fraud operation obtained a decision not to prosecute on every count.

Permanent residence is a status earned over many years. A drug case does not make it vanish on the spot, but it is a fact that you are placed on the different terrain of the deportation procedure. That is exactly why the criminal process, from its very first stage through to special permission to stay, has to be designed as one continuous whole. 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