Once the Deportation Order Is Issued, It Is Too Late to Apply: The Deadline in Article 50(3)

While deportation proceedings are running, it is easy to lose track of what has to be done by when, and simply watch the days go by. Special permission to stay (在留特別許可) is not something that can be sought at any point in the process. Article 50(3) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法) states expressly that once a written deportation order (退去強制令書) has been issued, an application for special permission to stay can no longer be made. The application has to be completed before the order comes out; that time limit is built into the scheme itself. This article is for those who have become subject to deportation because of a drug case, and for their families, and sets out calmly when an application may be made and what should be assembled in the limited time available.

Key points

• Under Article 50(3), no application for special permission to stay may be made after a written deportation order has been issued.
• Under Article 50(2), the application may be made by a foreign national detained under a written detention order (収容令書), or by one placed under supervision measures (監理措置).
• Under Article 50(4), special permission may be granted only after the person has accepted the finding under Article 47(3) or the determination under Article 48(8), or after the decision under Article 49(3).
• A drug offence becomes a ground for deportation on the conviction alone under Article 24(4)(chi), and a departure order (出国命令) under Article 24-3 is unavailable, so the case runs down the single track of deportation.
• If permission is refused, Article 50(10) requires written notice with reasons.

Can I still apply for special permission after the deportation order is issued?

No. Article 50(3) provides that once a written deportation order has been issued, an application for special permission to stay can no longer be made. This is express statutory language with little room for interpretation: once the order is out, that route is closed.

That point alone shows why seeking special permission to stay is not something to be left until 'after the criminal case is completely over'. From partway through the criminal proceedings, you gather material with an eye to what will have to be argued in the deportation procedure (退去強制手続). The difference in preparation is what separates outcomes when the time is short.

Who may apply (Article 50(2))

Article 50(2) identifies those who may apply for special permission to stay as a foreign national detained under a written detention order or one placed under supervision measures, the application being made to the Minister of Justice in the manner prescribed by Ministry of Justice ordinance. This used to be spoken of as a petition urging the Minister to exercise his own discretion; the 2023 amendment (令和5年改正) placed the application on a statutory footing.

So the first task is to establish exactly what position the person is currently in. Are they still in a penal institution? Have they been transferred to detention under a written detention order? Have supervision measures been ordered? Without that check, there is no way to plan the timing of an application.

Three milestones: the finding, the determination and the decision (Article 50(4))

Special permission is not granted before the process has passed certain milestones. Article 50(4) provides that special permission to stay may be granted only after the person has accepted the finding under Article 47(3) or the determination under Article 48(8), or after the decision under Article 49(3). The structure follows the stages of the process: the finding on violation examination by an immigration inspector, the determination on oral hearing by a special inquiry officer, and the decision of the Minister of Justice.

In other words, the effort to obtain special permission is bounded at both ends. The opening is fixed by the status described in paragraph 2; the closing, by the issuance of the order under paragraph 3. Only the span between them is available for delivering arguments and evidence.

• On accepting the finding under Article 47(3)
• On accepting the determination under Article 48(8)
• After the decision under Article 49(3)
• And before the written deportation order is issued (Article 50(3))

Why is time so short in drug cases?

Because the conviction itself is the ground for deportation. Article 24(4)(chi) covers anyone convicted of violating the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, the Act on Regulation of Cannabis Cultivation, the Opium Act, the Stimulants Control Act, the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act, or Chapter XIV of Part II of the Penal Code, with no limitation as to the type of penalty or its length. A suspended sentence is caught; so is a fine.

Nor is there an alternative track. The departure order under Article 24-3 applies only to persons falling under Article 24(2)-4, (4)(ro) and items 6 through 7, and requires in addition that the person not fall under any of Article 24(4)(ha) through (yo). Someone caught by (4)(chi) cannot satisfy that requirement, so even voluntary surrender does not lead to a departure order; the case proceeds through deportation. With no fork in the road, the only remaining variable is how the available time is used.

What to assemble before the order is issued

Article 50(5) directs the Minister to consider the reasons the person wishes to remain in Japan, family circumstances, conduct, the circumstances in which the person came to Japan, the length of residence in Japan, the person's legal status during that period, the facts giving rise to the ground for deportation, and the need for humanitarian consideration, together with domestic and international conditions, the effect on illegal residents in Japan and other circumstances. In a drug case, conduct and the facts giving rise to the ground for deportation are the heaviest obstacles, so the question becomes how far the remaining factors can be supported with concrete evidence.

And if permission is refused, Article 50(10) requires written notice with reasons. That document is the starting point for considering what can be done next, because it allows you to read, item by item against the statutory factors, what the decision-maker regarded as missing.

• Objective evidence of cohabitation, household finances and care of children
• Records of employment, tax payments and social insurance during the period of residence
• Records of medical treatment and of steps taken to prevent relapse
• A written undertaking from the person who will act as guarantor and supervisor, with evidence of that person's own circumstances

How our office works

At Funado International Law Office, attorney Daisuke Matsumura handles every stage personally, from the first detention visit through to the close of trial. We do not operate a system in which clerks or junior lawyers attend in his place, so the facts learned during the criminal proceedings carry straight over into the arguments made in the immigration process.

For Chinese, we have a dedicated interpreter on staff who is experienced in cases involving foreign nationals. Separately from any interpreter appointed by the investigating authorities, you have the use throughout the criminal process of an interpreter working for you. For languages other than Chinese, including English, we arrange an interpreter to suit the case. Renewals and changes of status of residence (在留資格) after the criminal process ends are handled on a one-stop basis together with an administrative scrivener we work with.

Related matters we have handled

In one matter, a client who had come to Japan as a tourist lost their status of residence and was arrested and prosecuted for overstaying. Because the marriage and the acknowledgment of paternity had not yet been completed, the application was initially not accepted; we negotiated with the authorities from a constitutional standpoint until the marriage and acknowledgment were established, gathered favourable evidence, and analysed the immigration authorities' 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 are pursuing litigation challenging the established practice that intent and negligence are irrelevant to grounds for deportation, testing the reach of the principle of culpability. In that same case we obtained special permission to stay in circumstances with no precedent. Past matters turned on their own particular facts, and no similar outcome can be promised.

The special permission scheme has an entrance, set by Article 50(2), and an exit, set by Article 50(3). How the time between them is used is very nearly the whole of the practical work. What we would most like to spare you is waiting without knowing the order of events. This article is a general explanation; for your own situation, please consult a lawyer directly. Past matters 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