How Long Is the Re-entry Ban? Sorting Out Article 5(1)(v) and Article 5(1)(ix)

When people talk about the bar on re-entering Japan, the figure of five years tends to take on a life of its own. In fact Article 5(1) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法) sets out a series of separate items, each covering a different kind of ground. Some items carry a time period; others do not. Planning a departure without knowing that difference can lead to a very unwelcome surprise later. This article untangles the relationship between item (v), which concerns those sentenced for drug offences, and item (ix), which corresponds to deportation histories, following the order in which the provisions appear. It is a point that is widely misunderstood, so it is worth going through step by step.

Key points

• Article 5(1)(ix) sets periods of one year, five years or ten years according to the person's deportation history and similar circumstances.
• Article 5(1)(v), covering a person sentenced for violating drug control laws, carries no time period at all.
• So even after the period under item (ix) has elapsed, the ground for denial of landing (上陸拒否) remains as long as item (v) applies.
• Item (v) requires only that a sentence was imposed, so a fine is enough, and violations of foreign law are included.
• Where item (v) applies, the only way to enter Japan is to seek special permission to land (上陸特別許可) under Article 12(1).

Is it true that I can enter Japan again after five years?

If only a deportation history is in play, thinking in terms of a period is appropriate. But that explanation does not hold for someone who has been sentenced for violating drug control laws. Article 5(1) lists grounds for denial of landing item by item, and each operates independently. Even if the period attached to one item has elapsed, landing will be denied where another item applies.

The question to ask, in other words, is not 'how many years have passed?' but 'which item applies to me?'. Getting that order the wrong way round leads to badly mistaken expectations after departure.

The item that carries a period: Article 5(1)(ix)

Item (ix) is structured so that persons falling within sub-items (a) through (f) are subject to denial of landing until the period specified for each has elapsed. Sub-item (a) covers a person denied landing under item (vi) or item (viii), for one year from the date of denial. Sub-item (b) covers a person deported under any item of Article 24 (excluding Article 24(4)(o) through (yo) and Article 24(4)-3) who received a decision under Article 52(5) and departed under a permission granted under Article 52(4) by the date prescribed by Ministry of Justice ordinance (excluding a person seeking to enter for a short-term stay), for one year from the date of departure.

From sub-item (c) onwards, periods of five years or ten years are set according to the deportation history. What matters here is the fact that item (ix) works through periods at all. Because a period is specified, the ground is resolved once that period passes.

• (a) A person denied landing under item (vi) or (viii): one year from the date of denial
• (b) A person deported in the circumstances specified: one year from the date of departure
• (c) onwards: five years or ten years, according to the deportation history

The item with no period: Article 5(1)(v)

Item (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. No period of the kind found in item (ix) is attached to it.

So even after one year, five years or ten years have passed since deportation, the ground for denial of landing remains for as long as item (v) applies. Assuming that entry becomes possible once the item (ix) period has run is one of the most common misunderstandings in this area.

Does a fine count, and what about a sentence imposed abroad?

Item (v) requires only that a sentence was imposed, with no threshold based on severity. A fine therefore counts. This is clearly different from item (iv), which covers a person sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more, or an equivalent penalty. Item (iv) draws a line based on the severity of the sentence; item (v) does not. That contrast is the simplest way to hold the two in mind.

Item (v) also expressly includes violations of the laws of countries other than Japan, so a record of being sentenced for a drug offence outside Japan can raise the same problem. Note as well that item (vi) covers a person unlawfully in possession of narcotics, stimulants and the like, and item (viii) a person unlawfully in possession of firearms, swords and the like; these are the grounds to which the one-year period in item (ix)(a) attaches.

How this maps onto the grounds for deportation

The counterpart on the departure side to Article 5(1)(v) is Article 24(4)(chi). 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.

Article 24(4)(ri), by contrast, covers, in addition to those listed in (ni) through (chi), a person sentenced to life imprisonment or to imprisonment (拘禁刑) for more than one year, while excluding those whose sentences have been suspended in their entirety and others. That exclusion for suspended sentences sits in the proviso to (4)(ri) and does not extend to (4)(chi). Coming in and going out, drugs are the one area with no buffer built in. That is what the system actually looks like.

So what can be done?

Where item (v) applies, entry is not possible within the ordinary landing framework, so the route is to seek special permission to land under Article 12(1). It is a special permission left to the discretion of the Minister of Justice, and the outcome cannot be promised in advance. Even so, for someone whose family is in Japan, it is the only path available.

And given how hard that path is, the decisive stage is the one before any sentence is imposed, that is, the stage at which the prosecution decision is made. That structure is the reason we treat obtaining a decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分) as the highest priority.

How our office works, and related matters

At Funado International Law Office, attorney Daisuke Matsumura handles every stage personally, from the first detention visit through to the close of trial. 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 after the criminal process ends are handled together with an administrative scrivener we work with.

In the field of special permission to stay (在留特別許可), we acted for a client who had lost their status of residence and was arrested and prosecuted for overstaying: we negotiated with the authorities until the marriage and acknowledgment of paternity were established 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 are pursuing litigation testing the reach of the principle of culpability, and in that case 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 accurate answer to the question of how long the bar on landing lasts is that it depends on which item applies. Item (ix) has time limits; item (v) does not. Reading the provisions side by side makes the difference plain, but in everyday conversation it is often only the figure of five years that survives. Start by working out which item covers your own situation. 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