What Happens After the Criminal Case Ends: Release, Completion of Sentence, and Transfer to Immigration

The verdict has been handed down, or word has come that there will be no prosecution. For a family, this feels like the moment a chapter finally closes. In drug cases involving foreign nationals, though, the end of the criminal process does not always mean freedom. The criminal process and the immigration procedure are separate systems, and the structure is such that when one finishes, the other begins to move. This article looks at three situations in turn, a decision not to prosecute, a suspended sentence, and completion of a prison term after an unsuspended sentence, and sets out what may follow in each.

Key points

• The criminal process and the deportation (退去強制) procedure are separate systems, so immigration proceedings can continue even after release from criminal custody.
• A guilty verdict in a drug case brings you within a ground for deportation under Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法).
• A decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分) involves no guilty verdict, so that item does not operate.
• Article 50, paragraph 2 provides that an application for special permission to stay (在留特別許可) 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.
• Material gathered at the criminal stage becomes, directly, the foundation of the arguments in the immigration procedure, so it is important to preserve it deliberately.

The end of a criminal case and the safety of your residence are two different things

Let us start with the overall picture. The criminal process determines whether an offence was committed and what punishment follows. The deportation procedure is an administrative process determining whether a person may continue to reside in Japan. Their purposes and their governing statutes differ, so the conclusion in one does not bind the other.

One provision, however, ties them tightly together: Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Act. It makes a ground for deportation of any 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. Since it sets no limit as to the type or length of sentence, a fine, a remission of punishment, or a wholly suspended sentence all satisfy it.

If I am not prosecuted, how does immigration respond?

Where there is a decision not to prosecute, no guilty verdict exists and Article 24, item 4(chi) does not operate. This holds whether the reason for the decision was suspension of prosecution (起訴猶予), insufficient evidence, or no suspicion at all. Here lies the reason our office places the weight of its defence work in the period before charges are brought.

It cannot be said, though, that a decision not to prosecute has no effect on residence whatsoever. Anyone holding a fixed-term status of residence (在留資格) will face an examination on renewal or change, and that examination assesses requirements including good conduct. The substance of the facts behind the disposal can be looked at.

After release on a suspended sentence, what happens next?

With a fully suspended sentence you are released from the penal institution. It is still a guilty verdict, however, so Article 24, item 4(chi) is satisfied. A deportation procedure therefore proceeds separately at this point.

Families frequently ask us whether, the sentence having been suspended, everything is now all right. For general categories of offence there certainly are situations in which a suspended sentence allows residence to be maintained, because Article 24, item 4(ri), while covering persons sentenced to life imprisonment (拘禁刑) or to imprisonment exceeding one year, excludes in its proviso those whose sentence has been wholly suspended and comparable cases. But item 4(ri) opens with the words "in addition to the persons listed in (ni) through (chi)", so the benefit of that proviso does not reach drug offences.

Serving an unsuspended sentence: what happens on the day the term ends

Where an unsuspended sentence has been served, completion of the term is what brings a person out of the penal institution. By that point the immigration problem has almost always already surfaced. The period of stay will usually have expired during the term, and a ground for deportation will already exist because the conviction has become final.

In practice, arrangements are made around the day of release from the penal institution, and the person may pass directly into the immigration procedure. That is why families who go to meet someone on the day of release sometimes find they cannot see them. Sharing an understanding of this in advance avoids a good deal of confusion.

Where the unsuspended sentence exceeds one year, Article 24, item 4(ri) also comes into play, and the heightened requirement in the proviso to Article 50, paragraph 1 applies to the decision on special permission to stay. That proviso provides that, for persons sentenced to life imprisonment 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), among others, 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.

What a criminal defence lawyer should preserve with the immigration procedure in mind

The criminal process generates a great deal of material that has value later in the immigration procedure. Records concerning how the case came about and whether the necessary intent existed are especially important. Immigration practice has for many years followed the position that intent and negligence are not elements in deciding whether a ground for deportation exists, but our office takes the view that the principle of individual culpability ought to extend to deportation as an administrative disposition, and we are litigating that point in a case arising from a deportation based on the facilitation of unlawful employment. The issue is still before the courts, but what you have to hand determines the range of arguments available.

• Objective material on how the case came about and how any request was made, such as message histories, records of the handover of packages, and travel arrangements
• Material on family circumstances, such as family registers, residence records, certificates of enrolment and written statements from family members
• Employment and tax history, such as certificates of employment, withholding statements, tax payment certificates and social insurance records
• Material on preventing recurrence, such as medical attendance records, treatment plans and written undertakings from a person willing to act as supervisor
• Such parts of the criminal record as can be obtained, including the written judgment and matters relating to the record of the decision not to prosecute

Designing three lines of defence

For drug cases involving foreign nationals, our office plans the defence in three stages. The first is obtaining a decision not to prosecute 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, concentrating our efforts within the limited period before charges are brought.

The second is contesting whether a ground for deportation is made out in the deportation procedure, which is where the culpability issue described above arises. The third is special permission to stay. Article 50, paragraph 5 of the Immigration Act provides for consideration of the reasons for wishing to remain, family circumstances, conduct, how the person came to enter Japan, the length of residence, the legal status held during that time, the facts giving rise to the deportation, and the need for humanitarian consideration, among other matters, and the submissions and evidence are assembled along those headings.

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 case moves from the criminal to the immigration stage, there is real value in having it handled by someone who has followed the whole course.

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 renewals and changes of status of residence after the criminal process has ended are handled together with an administrative scrivener with whom we work.

By way of example, 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 and the accumulation of argument and evidence. We have also obtained special permission to stay for a client arrested and prosecuted for unlawful overstay, by analysing previous grants of permission, and an acquittal for a client charged under the Stimulants Control Act with possession with intent to profit.

The conclusion of a criminal case is a significant turning point for the person concerned and for their family. Whether that turning point can be used as the starting point for the next procedure changes what follows. Once the terms of the judgment or the disposal are settled, we would suggest taking the time to set out clearly where things stand on the immigration side. 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