Supervision Measures in Drug Cases: How to Ask for an Alternative to Detention, and How It Connects to Special Permission to Stay

Long detention takes a heavy toll, on the person detained and on the family outside. Supervision measures (監理措置), introduced by the 2023 amendment (令和5年改正), allow the deportation procedure (退去強制手続) to go forward without detention. Families increasingly ask us whether the scheme might be available in their case. We will be direct: in drug cases, it is not easy to obtain. Even so, there are things worth arguing. This article sets out how to think about the scheme, without inflating expectations and without treating the matter as closed.

Key points

• Supervision measures, introduced by the 2023 amendment, allow deportation proceedings to be conducted without detention.
• Article 50(2) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法) names, as those who may apply for special permission to stay (在留特別許可), both a foreign national detained under a written detention order (収容令書) and one placed under supervision measures.
• Supervision measures are not easily granted in drug cases, and we cannot offer any confident prediction.
• In practice, the central questions are who will serve as supervisor and how far that person can genuinely keep track of the client's daily life.
• Even if detention continues, that is no reason to stop preparing for special permission to stay.

What are supervision measures?

Supervision measures are a way of conducting the deportation procedure without taking the person into detention. Introduced by the 2023 amendment to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, the scheme contemplates appointing a supervisor and continuing the proceedings under that person's oversight.

One place where the scheme's status is visible on the face of the statute is Article 50(2). That provision states that an application for special permission to stay is made to the Minister of Justice, in the manner prescribed by Ministry of Justice ordinance, by a foreign national detained under a written detention order or by a foreign national placed under supervision measures. A person under supervision measures is therefore named in the statute as an eligible applicant, on the same footing as a person in detention.

Are supervision measures hard to obtain in drug cases?

We will say plainly that they are not easy to obtain. Leaving that vague and allowing hope to build would, we think, only add to a family's burden.

Under Article 24(4)(chi) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法24条4号チ), a drug offence is a ground for deportation regardless of the severity of the sentence. Depending on the case, there may also be an organised element in the background, or an ongoing problem of dependence, and both can count against a request for release from detention. On the statistical side, National Police Agency material for 2025 puts the reoffending rate in stimulant cases at 64.6 percent.

That said, there is no rule that supervision measures are categorically unavailable in drug cases. The nature of the offence, the degree of involvement, whether dependence is present and how it is being treated, the substance of the proposed supervision, the person's residence history: the assessment can differ according to these individual circumstances. The approach here is to avoid prejudging the outcome and to set out, carefully, every circumstance that can properly be argued.

Thinking about who will act as supervisor

In practice the first obstacle is finding someone willing to act as supervisor. This is the doorway to the scheme.

What is needed is not someone willing to lend a name. It should be someone genuinely able to keep track of the person's daily life, reachable day to day, and in a position to accompany them to appointments when required. A family member living in the same household, a long-standing employer, someone with a continuing involvement in the local community: what matters is being able to show that the relationship is real.

• Living in the same household or nearby, in day-to-day contact
• In a position to know about the person's work and medical appointments
• Objective evidence of the relationship to date (residence records, photographs, records of correspondence)
• Evidence that the proposed supervisor's own circumstances are stable

Supervision measures are also a gateway to special permission to stay

We design the defence of a foreign national's drug case in three lines. The first is obtaining a decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分) in the criminal case. The second is contesting whether a ground for deportation exists. The third is special permission to stay.

Reaching that third line requires satisfying a procedural requirement. Under Article 50(2), an application may be made by a foreign national detained under a written detention order, or by one placed under supervision measures. Supervision measures therefore matter not only because they make life outside detention possible, but because they are one of the routes to standing at the door of a special permission application.

Being outside detention also brings practical advantages in fighting that third line. Continuing medical treatment, continuing work, an actual family life under one roof: each of these connects directly to items in Article 50(5), such as conduct, family circumstances and the need for humanitarian consideration.

There is still work to do if detention continues

If supervision measures are refused, and while a decision is awaited, preparation for special permission to stay can go on. Much of the document-gathering can only be done by the family: family registry and residence records, proof of a child's school enrolment and report cards, tax certificates, proof of employment, a letter from the employer, a written undertaking from whoever will supervise. Where the case calls for medical care, arranging appointments and someone to accompany the client also has real value.

What we can honestly say about the likely outcome

Neither for supervision measures nor for special permission to stay can we promise a result. The scheme is applied case by case, and assessments vary. What we can say is that we are able to put forward every circumstance that can properly be argued, and to support each one with evidence.

That work has real value nonetheless. Article 50(10) provides that where permission is refused, notice must be given promptly in writing, with reasons. Reasons on paper mean you can see which parts of your case were accepted and which were not. The procedure builds on itself, and nothing put into it is wasted.

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 the work personally, from the first detention visit through to drafting the immigration filings. Meeting the proposed supervisor and understanding the realities of the household are done more accurately by someone who has followed the case from the beginning.

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: for a client who had lost their status of residence and was arrested and prosecuted for overstaying, we regularised the family relationships through negotiation with the authorities and analysed previously published grants, obtaining special permission to stay on a single application. In the case of a woman wrongly accused of promoting illegal employment, we obtained special permission to stay in circumstances with no precedent, and are pursuing litigation challenging the established practice that intent and negligence are irrelevant to grounds for deportation.

Supervision measures are still a young scheme, and experience with how they are applied is only now accumulating. It is true that they are not easily obtained in drug cases. It is equally true that the statute names a person under supervision measures as an eligible applicant for special permission to stay. The only way forward is to test, one by one, the routes the system does provide. 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