A Drug Case While a Refugee Application Is Pending: Article 50, Paragraph 1, Item 4 and How the Procedures Overlap

People applying for refugee recognition, and those supporting them, sometimes ask us what happens when a criminal case arises while the application is pending. The refugee procedure, the criminal process in a drug case, and the deportation procedure each run on their own legal axis, and the outcome of one does not simply dictate the outcome of another. There are, though, points at which they influence one another. This article works carefully through what can be confirmed from the text of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法), avoiding categorical statements, to set out how these procedures overlap.

Key points

• Even while a refugee application is pending, a guilty verdict in a drug case brings you within a ground for deportation (退去強制) under Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Act.
• Article 50, paragraph 1, item 4 names recognition as a refugee or as a person eligible for complementary protection as one of the cases in which special permission to stay (在留特別許可) may be granted.
• The statute treats having been recognised and having an application pending as different positions.
• The rules on removal have been through legislative amendment, so how they apply now needs to be confirmed against your particular circumstances.
• Contesting intent in a drug case at the criminal stage lays the foundation for the arguments made later in the immigration procedure.

If my refugee application is pending, am I shielded from the effects of a drug case?

Unfortunately, no. Having applied for refugee recognition is not treated as something that cancels out the application of Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Act. A guilty verdict in a drug case brings you within a ground for deportation whether or not an application is pending.

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. All the provision requires is the fact of a guilty verdict; there is no limit as to type or length of sentence, so a fine or a wholly suspended sentence is enough.

Why Article 50, paragraph 1, item 4 is there

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 fourth of those cases is where the person has been recognised as a refugee or as a person eligible for complementary protection.

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. Where one of these applies, residence may be specially permitted on the foreign national's application or on the authorities' own initiative.

What the provision says is "where the person has been recognised", not "where an application is pending". A person who has been recognised and a person whose application has not yet been decided therefore engage this item differently. For someone with an application pending, the position is likely to be considered under the catch-all in (5), where circumstances including conditions in the country of origin are weighed in the round.

How should I think about the relationship with removal?

The treatment of removal while a refugee application is pending has been altered by legislative amendment in recent years. The details of the system differ before and after the amendment, and treatment can also vary with the number of applications made and the stage the procedure has reached. For that reason we do not think it appropriate to make categorical statements about this point in the abstract.

What matters in practice is knowing accurately where you stand at present. Which application this is in sequence, when it was made, whether the matter is at the administrative appeal stage, whether a decision has been made on provisional stay, and what stage the criminal process has reached. The combination of these determines what steps are available.

How contesting intent in a drug case feeds into later procedures

Drug cases involving refugee applicants include matters where the background is that the person looked after a package, was asked to transport something, or received an item without being told what it was. It is a real feature of life that someone in a precarious position finds such requests hard to refuse.

In the criminal process, the presence or absence of intent is the central issue dividing guilt from acquittal. Beyond that, our office takes the view that this issue ought to extend into the immigration procedure as well. Immigration practice has for many years followed the position that intent and negligence are not elements in deciding whether a ground for deportation exists. Attorney Daisuke Matsumura is continuing to litigate a case, arising from a deportation based on the facilitation of unlawful employment, that squarely asks whether the principle of individual culpability should extend to deportation as an administrative disposition.

That issue is still before the courts and we cannot anticipate the outcome. One thing can be said in practical terms, however: contesting intent thoroughly at the criminal stage, and preserving the resulting written statements, communication records and material about how the request came to be made, forms the foundation of the arguments made later in the immigration procedure. Going back to gather material after the criminal case has ended is, in most instances, far from easy.

What to assemble when seeking special permission to stay

Article 50, paragraph 5 of the Immigration Act 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.

• How the person came to enter Japan: the reasons for leaving the country of origin, the route taken, and the course of the application after arrival
• The need for humanitarian consideration: objective material on conditions in the country of origin, state of health, and where family members are
• Conduct: how the case came about and its background, and concrete arrangements to prevent recurrence
• The facts giving rise to the deportation: the substance of the case, including whether the necessary intent existed

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. Where a refugee procedure and a criminal process run side by side, having one lawyer follow the whole course determines the quality of the judgements made.

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 matters relating to status of residence (在留資格) after the procedure 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 the case of a woman wrongly accused of facilitating unlawful employment who faced deportation, we obtained special permission to stay with no prior example, and are litigating a case challenging the established practice that intent and negligence are unnecessary for a ground for deportation.

When a refugee procedure and a criminal process run at the same time, it is hard for the person concerned, and for those supporting them, to see where things are heading. Even so, the framework the statute lays down can be confirmed, and which arguments to advance at which stage can be planned. What matters, in our view, is not leaving the unclear parts unclear, but checking them one by 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