Drug Offences Are Not Covered by the Proviso to Article 50(1): Reading the Special Permission Test Word by Word

When it comes to grounds for deportation, drug offences are treated with exceptional severity: Article 24(4)(chi) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法24条4号チ) makes any conviction a ground, whatever the sentence. Turn to special permission to stay (在留特別許可), however, and the picture on the page changes. The proviso to Article 50(1), which raises the bar for certain categories, does not list Article 24(4)(chi). That single fact is one of the few footholds available in drug cases. This article walks through the wording of the proviso and sets out, carefully and without overstating it, what can and cannot be drawn from it.

Key points

• The proviso to Article 50(1) imposes a heightened test in certain cases, requiring 'special circumstances such that refusing to permit residence would be lacking in humanitarian consideration'.
• The proviso covers a person sentenced to life imprisonment or to imprisonment (拘禁刑) for more than one year (excluding fully suspended sentences and the like), and a person falling under Article 24(3)-2, (3)-3, (4)(ha) or (4)(o) through (yo).
• Article 24(4)(chi), which covers drug offences, is not in that list.
• So unless the sentence exceeds one year of actual imprisonment, the heightened test is not triggered by the drug offence as such.
• Falling outside the proviso does not mean permission will be granted. It means only that the ordinary framework applies.

The conclusion: Article 24(4)(chi) is not on the list in the proviso

Article 50(1) provides that, even where a person is subject to deportation, special permission to stay may be granted in certain cases. The proviso that follows the main text identifies the situations in which the test is made more demanding.

The proviso provides that where the foreign national has been sentenced to life imprisonment or to imprisonment for more than one year (excluding a person whose sentence has been suspended in its entirety, and a person given a partially suspended sentence where the unsuspended portion is one year or less), or falls under Article 24(3)-2, (3)-3, (4)(ha) or (4)(o) through (yo), permission may be granted only where the Minister finds special circumstances such that refusing to permit residence in Japan would be lacking in humanitarian consideration.

Harshest on deportation, absent from the proviso: how to read the asymmetry

Within the same statute, drug offences are treated differently depending on the setting. Article 24(4)(chi) is drawn extremely widely: a fine, a remission of punishment, a fully suspended sentence, all of it counts, so long as there is a conviction. The proviso to Article 50(1), by contrast, works by expressly listing the categories it captures, and (4)(chi) is not among them. At the entrance to deportation, drug offences are caught as broadly as possible; at the stage of assessing special permission, no special heightening is imposed. That contrast is visible on the face of the provisions.

It would be a mistake, though, to draw too much from the asymmetry. Falling outside the proviso means only that the heightened test does not apply. It means the ordinary framework governs, nothing more and nothing less. The substance of the decision is made case by case, under the factors in Article 50(5).

Why does 'more than one year of actual imprisonment' become the dividing line?

Because the first limb of the proviso divides cases according to the sentence. It captures a person sentenced to life imprisonment or to imprisonment for more than one year, and then carves out a person whose sentence has been suspended in its entirety, and a person given a partially suspended sentence where the unsuspended portion is one year or less.

The same structure appears on the deportation side. Article 24(4)(ri) makes a sentence of life imprisonment or imprisonment for more than one year a ground for deportation, while its own proviso excludes those whose sentences are fully suspended. But (4)(ri) opens with the words 'in addition to those listed in (ni) through (chi)', so drug offences fall outside its scope from the start.

• Fully suspended sentence: not within the first limb of the proviso
• Partially suspended sentence with an unsuspended portion of one year or less: not within the first limb
• Actual imprisonment of one year or less: not within the first limb
• Life imprisonment, or actual imprisonment of more than one year: within the first limb

Why does avoiding more than one year of actual imprisonment matter?

In criminal defence, sentencing is normally understood as a question of how long a person will serve. In a foreign national's drug case, a second meaning is layered on top: whether the framework for assessing special permission to stay will be heightened. According to the 2024 White Paper on Crime (drawing on the Annual Report of Judicial Statistics), for determinate sentences imposed by district courts, violations of the Stimulants Control Act numbered 4,770 in total, of which 1,717 (36.0 percent) received fully suspended sentences and 3,053 (64.0 percent) received actual imprisonment (including partially suspended sentences); violations of the Cannabis Control Act numbered 2,326 in total, of which 1,959 (84.2 percent) received fully suspended sentences and 367 (15.8 percent) actual imprisonment.

Avoiding a misunderstanding: the limits of falling outside the proviso

What the proviso imposes is a threshold: permission only where refusing it would be found lacking in humanitarian consideration in light of special circumstances. Falling outside the proviso means only that this threshold is not imposed. The decision itself is still made on the factors in Article 50(5).

There are also procedural boundaries. The application is made by a foreign national detained under a written detention order (収容令書) or placed under supervision measures (監理措置) (Article 50(2)); it can be granted only after the person has accepted the finding or determination, or after the Minister's decision (Article 50(4)); and it can no longer be made once a written deportation order (退去強制令書) has been issued (Article 50(3)).

The first objective is still a decision not to prosecute

Seen purely in terms of protecting residence in Japan, the best outcome is that no conviction exists at all, which means a decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分). According to the 2024 White Paper on Crime (drawing on the Annual Report of Public Prosecution Statistics), the rate of suspension of prosecution (起訴猶予) was 8.5 percent for violations of the Stimulants Control Act, 35.5 percent for the Cannabis Control Act, 15.9 percent for the Narcotics Control Act and 52.5 percent for the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act. For comparison, the rate across special-law offences as a whole, excluding road traffic offences, was 45.5 percent.

Where prosecution cannot be avoided, the next objective is to avoid a sentence exceeding one year of actual imprisonment. What we call working towards non-prosecution as the primary goal is simply this: fixing that order of priorities at the outset and designing the defence backwards from it. That design is impossible without understanding how the immigration statute is built.

How our office works, and matters we have handled

At Funado International Law Office (Fuse Building Main Wing 3F, 3-4-10 Takada, Toshima-ku, Tokyo), attorney Daisuke Matsumura handles every stage personally, from the first detention visit through to the close of trial. Judging the sentencing question and the residence question as one continuous problem requires someone who knows the detail of the case to stay with it to the end.

For Chinese, we have a dedicated interpreter on staff who is experienced in cases involving foreign nationals, so that you have an interpreter working for you rather than one appointed by the investigating authorities. For other languages, including English, we arrange an interpreter to suit the case. Renewals and changes of status of residence (在留資格) after the proceedings conclude are handled together with an administrative scrivener we work with.

Among the matters we have handled: an acquittal for a client prosecuted for violating the Stimulants Control Act (possession for the purpose of profit), obtained through thorough analysis of the evidence and through examination of the defendant and cross-examination of witnesses. We have also acted in lay judge cases, in serious cases reported internationally, and in international criminal matters, and have obtained special permission to stay for a client arrested and prosecuted for overstaying.

Reading a statute closely is unglamorous work, but it is how the range of available options gets fixed. The single point that Article 24(4)(chi) does not appear in the proviso to Article 50(1) is the starting point for building an argument in a drug case. Neither overstate it nor undervalue it; use it for exactly what it is. This article is a general explanation; for your own situation, please consult a lawyer directly. The past matters described here turned on their own particular facts, and no similar outcome can be promised.

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