Can I Ever Return to Japan After Deportation? Article 5(1)(v) and the Single Route of Special Permission to Land

The question we hear most often after someone has had to leave Japan is when they will be allowed back. Where family remains in Japan, the answer bears directly on daily life. For a person who has been sentenced for a drug offence, the position differs from other deportation histories: there is no mechanism by which the door simply opens once enough years have passed. This article works through the structure of Article 5(1)(v) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法), and then explains the one route that remains, special permission to land (上陸特別許可) under Article 12(1), without either inflating hopes or urging resignation.

Key points

• Article 5(1)(v) makes a person who has been sentenced for violating laws controlling narcotics, cannabis, opium, stimulants or psychotropic substances subject to denial of landing (上陸拒否), and sets no time period.
• The periods of one year, five years and ten years in Article 5(1)(ix) correspond to deportation histories; there is no equivalent period attached to item (v).
• Item (v) requires only that a sentence was imposed, so a fine is enough. Violations of the laws of countries other than Japan are also included.
• The ordinary landing framework therefore offers no way in, and the only route is to seek special permission to land under Article 12(1).
• Special permission to land lies within the discretion of the Minister of Justice, and no one can promise in advance that it will be granted.

Will I be able to enter Japan again after a few years?

For a person sentenced for violating drug control laws, there is no mechanism by which the ground for denial of landing disappears simply with the passage of time. Article 5(1)(v) covers a person who has been sentenced for violating the laws of Japan or of any other country controlling narcotics, cannabis, opium, stimulants or psychotropic substances, and it attaches no time period to that ground.

This differs sharply from an ordinary deportation history. Article 5(1)(ix) sets periods of one year, five years or ten years according to the circumstances of the deportation, and makes a person subject to denial of landing until that period has elapsed. Where a period is specified, the corollary is that the ground ceases to apply once the period passes. Item (v) has no such mechanism.

Reading Article 5(1)(v) as it is written

The requirement in item (v) is a single one: that the person has been sentenced for violating drug control legislation. The severity of the sentence is not in issue, so a fine is enough. The provision also expressly covers violations of the laws of countries other than Japan, so a record of being sentenced for a drug offence abroad is treated in the same way.

This mirrors the structure of Article 24(4)(chi) on the deportation side. That provision 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. Where drugs are concerned, the door in and the door out are built to the same degree of severity.

• No limitation as to type of penalty; a fine is enough (Article 5(1)(v))
• Sentences imposed under foreign law are included (same item)
• For comparison, Article 5(1)(iv) covers a person sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more, or an equivalent penalty
• Article 5(1)(vi) makes unlawful possession of narcotics, stimulants and the like a ground for denial of landing in itself

What is special permission to land under Article 12(1)?

Since entry is not possible within the ordinary landing framework, what remains is to seek special permission to land under Article 12(1). This is a special permission granted at the discretion of the Minister of Justice, not something that follows automatically once requirements are met. So while one can say that a possibility exists, no one can express the prospects as a number.

In practice, what matters is showing why entry into Japan is necessary, not as an abstract wish but as a concrete fact of family life. The relationship with a spouse and children in Japan, their circumstances, the difficulties caused by living apart. And what the person has built up in the time since departure.

Building a record in the years after removal

In an application for special permission to land, the facts that gave rise to the deportation do not disappear. On that footing, the question is what has happened in the years since. Records of work and tax payments, continuing medical treatment and relapse-prevention efforts, the reality of contact with family. All of these are hard to reconstruct later unless they are preserved in documents and objective records.

Where family remains in Japan, there is a good deal that can be kept on the Japanese side: records of remittances, letters exchanged, records of visits and travel, material about a child's school life. These are the raw material for showing that, despite the distance, the family relationship remains real.

• Evidence of continuous work, tax payments and residence in the home country
• Records of medical treatment and participation in treatment programmes
• Records of contact, remittances and visits involving family in Japan
• Material on a child's schooling and the practical need for the applicant's involvement in raising the child

Far more can be done before removal than after it

To be direct: opening the door after deportation is far harder than keeping residence before it. Article 50 sets out the framework for special permission to stay (在留特別許可), but Article 50(3) makes clear that no application may be made once a written deportation order (退去強制令書) has been issued. The order of events determines the breadth of the options.

That is why, in a foreign national's drug case, we regard a defence strategy whose ultimate goal is a suspended sentence at trial as aiming at the wrong target, so far as residence is concerned. A conviction of any kind falls within Article 24(4)(chi), and beyond it Article 5(1)(v) is waiting. A decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分), obtained before charges are brought, is the one complete way out that protects residence.

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. There are many situations in which the case has to be built by hearing from both the client abroad and the family in Japan. For Chinese, we have a dedicated interpreter on staff who is experienced in cases involving foreign nationals. For languages other than Chinese, including English, we arrange an interpreter to suit the case.

Status of residence (在留資格) procedures are handled on a one-stop basis together with an administrative scrivener we work with. Enquiries can be made through our website or by WeChat.

Matters we have handled that may be of reference

In one matter, a client who had come to Japan as a tourist had a child with a Japanese woman but lost their status of residence and was arrested and prosecuted for overstaying. Because the marriage and the acknowledgment of paternity had not been completed, the application was initially not accepted; we negotiated with the authorities from a constitutional standpoint until the marriage and acknowledgment were established. Working in difficult conditions in which almost no official documents from the country of nationality existed, we gathered favourable evidence and analysed the immigration authorities' previously published grants, obtaining special permission to stay on a single application.

Our office has also acted in international criminal matters, in lay judge cases, and in serious cases reported internationally. Past matters turned on their own particular facts, and no similar outcome can be promised.

That Article 5(1)(v) sets no time limit is a heavy fact. But the system is not sealed shut: Article 12(1) provides a separate doorway. What you build in order to stand at that doorway depends on how the time from today onwards is spent. We will not offer easy predictions, but once we have heard the circumstances we can work out together which realistic routes remain. 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