Overstaying in Japan Plus Other Violations: Unauthorized Work, Fake Residence Cards, and Helping Someone Work Illegally

When you have stayed in Japan past the expiry date on your residence card, other problems tend to pile up on top of the original one as the months pass. Perhaps you worked beyond what your status of residence allowed. Perhaps you were holding a residence card that someone else gave you. Perhaps you introduced a friend in the same situation to a place that would hire him. At the time, each of these may have felt like the only way to keep going. But the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (Immigration Control Act) treats each of them as a violation separate from illegal overstay. And depending on how they stack up, the procedures that remain available to you afterwards change. This article looks at the three violations that most often accompany an overstay, cites the provisions that govern them, and explains what happens when they overlap.

What happens if I overstayed and also worked outside my status of residence?

You acquire one additional criminal offence and one additional ground for deportation. Specifically, exclusive engagement in unauthorized work constitutes an offence under Article 70, paragraph (1), item (iv) of the Immigration Control Act, and as a ground for deportation you fall under Article 24, item (iv)(a) in addition to Article 24, item (iv)(b) for the overstay itself.

Overstaying by itself is a crime under Article 70, paragraph (1), item (v), which covers "a person who remains in Japan beyond the period of stay without obtaining an extension or change of that period." The statutory penalty in the main clause of that paragraph is a kōkinkei (custodial sentence) of up to three years or a fine of up to three million yen, or both. Exclusive engagement in unauthorized work under item (iv) carries the same statutory penalty, because the same main clause applies.

The point to keep in mind is that although the statutory maximum does not rise when violations accumulate, the disposition you actually receive clearly moves in a heavier direction. The statutory penalty is uniform regardless of how long you stayed or how many violations there were. What changes is the prosecutor's choice of disposition and the range within which a sentence is set. A case in which the overstay ran for a long time and the person worked throughout tends to be assessed as one in which an unlawful state was allowed to continue, and it tends toward a heavier outcome. A case in which the period was short, the person came forward voluntarily, and the basis of daily life and family relationships are clear tends toward a lighter one. These are tendencies only, and actual outcomes vary considerably from case to case.

What happens if I was holding a forged residence card?

A violation of a different character is added, and it is treated far more seriously. Forging or altering a residence card, and providing or possessing a forged residence card, are each defined as offences under the Immigration Control Act. Where a person is sentenced for such an offence, a ground for deportation arises under Article 24, item (iii)-5.

This matters because, as explained below, it removes access to the departure order procedure, which is the comparatively mild way out. It is not unusual for someone in an overstay situation to end up with a forged card in order to find work or to prove identity. But in the scheme of the Immigration Control Act, falsifying an official means of proof draws far stronger censure than the state of simply remaining past a deadline.

In addition, if an offence relating to a forged residence card results in an actual custodial term exceeding one year, a heightened requirement also applies at the stage of special permission to stay. That is explained under a later heading.

Can introducing a friend to a job count as promoting illegal work?

It can. Article 24, item (iii)-4 provides that having engaged in conduct amounting to the promotion of illegal work is itself a ground for deportation, and it does not require that the person have been criminally punished for that conduct. The belief that "there was no criminal case, so it will not be an issue in the immigration procedure either" is mistaken.

In actual consultations we often hear that the person was in the same position and only meant to help, or that no introduction fee was received. Those circumstances may be weighed later when special permission to stay is considered, but at the threshold question of whether Article 24, item (iii)-4 applies, what is asked is whether the conduct occurred. If this is taken lightly and a vague explanation is given during questioning, the vagueness itself can end up recorded as an unfavourable fact.

Do accumulated violations make me ineligible for a departure order?

In many combinations, yes. The departure order allows a person to leave Japan without detention as a precondition, but Article 24-3 requires that all five of the following conditions be satisfied.

• Item (i): (a) before a violation investigation under Article 27 has begun, the person appeared at a regional immigration services office of their own accord with the intention of leaving Japan promptly; or (b) after the investigation began but before receiving the notice under Article 47, paragraph (3), the person stated to an immigration inspector or immigration control officer that they intend to leave Japan promptly.
• Item (ii): the person does not fall under any of Article 24, items (iii) through (iii)-5, item (iv), sub-items ハ through ヨ, item (viii) or item (ix). (Japanese statutes label sub-items with the kana イ, ロ, ハ and so on; item (iv)(b) above is sub-item ロ.).
• Item (iii): after entering Japan, the person has not been sentenced to a kōkinkei (custodial sentence) for offences under the Penal Code concerning breaking into a residence; counterfeiting of currency, documents or securities, or electromagnetic records of payment cards; gambling; homicide; injury; unlawful capture and confinement; kidnapping and abduction; theft and robbery; fraud and extortion; or stolen property; nor under Articles 1, 1-2 and 1-3 of the Act on Punishment of Physical Violence and Others; the Act for Prevention of Larceny; Articles 15 and 16 of the Act on Prohibition of Possession of Special Picking Tools; Articles 2 and 6, paragraph (1) of the Act on Punishment of Acts Inflicting Death or Injury on Others by Driving a Motor Vehicle; or Article 22 of the Act on Prevention of Disposal of Stolen Specified Metal Products.
• Item (iv): the person has not previously been deported from Japan, nor departed under a departure order issued under Article 55-85, paragraph (1).
• Item (v): the person is expected with certainty to leave Japan promptly.

Item (ii) is the heart of this article. Both Article 24, item (iii)-4 (promotion of illegal work) and Article 24, item (iii)-5 (sentencing for offences relating to forged residence cards) fall within the range "items (iii) through (iii)-5." If either applies, that alone means the conditions for a departure order are not met, and the case proceeds to deportation instead.

By contrast, exclusive engagement in unauthorized work under Article 24, item (iv)(a) is not within the range excluded by item (ii). So the existence of unauthorized work does not automatically close off the departure order route. The other conditions, including item (v), that the person be expected with certainty to leave Japan promptly, must still be satisfied separately.

Where a departure order is issued, the supervising immigration inspector orders prompt departure and, under Article 55-85, paragraph (1), sets a departure deadline within a period not exceeding fifteen days. Under paragraph (3) of the same Article, conditions such as restrictions on residence and area of movement may be attached.

How much longer will I be barred from re-entering Japan?

Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix) sets the period of denial of landing according to how the person left Japan, and the difference ranges from one year to ten years, and in some cases to no fixed period at all.

• A person who departed under a departure order: Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(e), one year from the date of departure.
• A person falling under Article 24-3, item (i)(b) (who expressed the intention to leave only after the violation investigation had begun) who departs under a departure order and thereafter seeks to engage in activities as a temporary visitor: Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(f), five years from the date of departure.
• A person subject to deportation who received a decision under Article 52, paragraph (5) and left of their own accord by the deadline, other than for temporary visitor purposes: Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(b), one year from the date of departure.
• A person who was deported and had no prior record of deportation or departure order: Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(c), five years from the date of deportation.
• A person who was deported and already had such a record: Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(d), ten years from the date of deportation.
• A person deported on grounds falling within Article 24, item (iv), sub-items オ through ヨ: Article 5, paragraph (1), item (x), no fixed period.

If promotion of illegal work or a forged residence card issue is added and the departure order becomes unavailable, the case ordinarily proceeds to deportation, and the period of denial of landing becomes five years under item (ix)(c), or ten years under item (ix)(d) where there is a prior record. A case that might have ended with one year under item (ix)(e) becomes a five or ten year bar because of a single additional violation. Separately, Article 5, paragraph (1), item (v), which concerns a record of punishment under narcotics-related laws, sets no time limit at all, so the denial of landing has no fixed period.

Is special permission to stay still possible when violations have accumulated?

Yes. Article 50, paragraph (1) provides that even where a person falls within those subject to deportation, the Minister of Justice may grant special permission to stay, either upon application by the foreign national or ex officio. Most overstay cases are considered under item (v) of that paragraph, "where the Minister of Justice finds other circumstances warranting special permission to stay."

What matters here is the scope of the heightened requirement in the proviso to Article 50, paragraph (1). The proviso applies to a person sentenced to life imprisonment or to a kōkinkei (custodial sentence) exceeding one year, excluding a person granted suspension of the entire sentence and a person granted partial suspension whose unsuspended portion is one year or less, and to a person falling under Article 24, item (iii)-2, item (iii)-3, item (iv)(c), or item (iv), sub-items オ through ヨ. For those persons, permission may be granted "only where the Minister finds special circumstances such that refusing permission to stay in Japan would be lacking in humanitarian consideration." A case involving only illegal overstay under Article 24, item (iv)(b) is not subject to that heightened requirement. Nor are Article 24, item (iii)-4 (promotion of illegal work) or item (iii)-5 among the provisions the proviso lists.

That said, if the accumulation of violations leads to an actual custodial sentence exceeding one year in the criminal trial, that fact alone triggers the heightened requirement in the proviso. This is why work to reduce the criminal disposition and work to obtain special permission to stay must be designed together from the very first steps. Even if the criminal case ends in a suspended sentence or non-prosecution, the deportation procedure still proceeds under Article 24, item (iv)(b). Conversely, once there is an actual sentence exceeding one year, the outlook for special permission to stay becomes markedly harder. The two are linked and cannot be handled separately.

Procedurally, under Article 50, paragraph (2), an application for special permission to stay is made to the Minister of Justice, in accordance with procedures prescribed by Ministry of Justice ordinance, by a foreign national detained under a written detention order or subject to a supervision measure decision. Before that stage, the work consists of asking the authorities to exercise their own authority. Under Article 50, paragraph (3), no application can be made once a written deportation order has been issued. The decision is made after the person has accepted the finding under Article 47, paragraph (3) or the determination under Article 48, paragraph (8), or after the Minister has ruled that an objection is without grounds (Article 50, paragraph (4)). Article 50, paragraph (5) requires consideration of the reasons for wishing to stay, family relationships, conduct, the circumstances of entry into Japan, the length of stay and legal status during it, the facts giving rise to deportation, and the need for humanitarian consideration, as well as domestic and international circumstances and the effect on illegal residents in Japan, among other matters. Where permission is refused, Article 50, paragraph (10) requires prompt written notice with reasons attached.

Why acting before being detected matters

The more violations have accumulated, the harder it becomes to walk into an immigration office voluntarily, because it means that not only the overstay but also the work and the card will come to light. Yet the structure of the provisions shows that the longer the hesitation lasts, the fewer exits remain.

Article 24-3, item (i) distinguishes between appearing voluntarily before a violation investigation has begun, under (a), and expressing an intention to leave after the investigation has begun, under (b). Under (a), departure under a departure order carries a one year bar on landing under Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(e). Under (b), an attempt to come to Japan afterwards as a temporary visitor carries a five year bar under item (ix)(f). Further, if promotion of illegal work or a forged residence card comes to light during an enforcement action, the conditions in Article 24-3, item (ii) are not met and the departure order becomes unavailable altogether. The same person with the same circumstances may face one year or ten years, depending on when they act.

The Guidelines on Special Permission to Stay, revised in March 2024 and in force from 10 June 2024, describe special permission to stay as "a measure taken exceptionally and as a matter of grace toward a foreign national who ought to be deported from Japan." Under the heading of other circumstances, the Guidelines expressly state that the fact that the foreign national appeared at a regional immigration services office of their own accord in order to report their illegal residence is considered a positive factor. Prolonged illegal residence, by contrast, is assessed as a negative factor. Time is not on your side.

What matters is to organise, before you appear, what may be assessed as a violation: the reality of any unauthorized work, how the card was obtained, and whether you were involved in another person's employment. Confirming these as facts together with counsel, and assembling material that supports the favourable points, produces a very different record from simply answering questions unprepared.

About our office

Funado International Law Office is located at Fuse Building Main Wing 3F, 3-4-10 Takada, Toshima-ku, Tokyo. Daisuke Matsumura, attorney at law, handles criminal defence for foreign nationals and immigration procedures as his principal areas of focus, with a client base centred on Chinese nationals. In cases where violations have accumulated, what is said in the criminal procedure becomes, in that form, part of the record of the immigration procedure. The criminal and immigration sides therefore have to be designed as one from the first steps.

Two examples may be helpful. In one, a woman was accused, wrongly, of promoting illegal work and faced deportation. Against the established practice that grounds for deportation require neither intent nor negligence, litigation was brought that questioned the reach of the principle of culpability, and the matter was contested up to the appellate level. Special permission to stay was subsequently granted by the immigration authorities. In the other, a client who had come to Japan as a tourist had a child with a Japanese woman, then lost his status of residence and was arrested and prosecuted for illegal residence. The marriage and acknowledgment of paternity had not been completed and the authorities initially refused to accept the filings; Mr. Matsumura negotiated with the authorities from a constitutional standpoint so that the marriage and acknowledgment were established, and conducted defendant questioning and witness examination with the criminal trial for violation of the Immigration Control Act firmly in view. Even where almost no official documents issued by the country of nationality existed, favourable evidence was gathered, and by analysing past permission cases of the immigration authorities, special permission to stay was obtained in a single round of proceedings.

As to how the work is staffed, Mr. Matsumura personally handles every stage, from the first visit at the detention facility to the close of trial. Clerical staff and junior lawyers do not stand in for him. A dedicated Chinese interpreter experienced in cases involving foreign nationals is permanently on staff; for other languages, an interpreter is arranged according to the needs of the case. This means that, separately from the interpreter designated by the investigating authorities, a client can use an interpreter whose role is to act for the client. Renewal or change of status of residence after the criminal procedure ends is handled on a one-stop basis together with an affiliated administrative scrivener. The first consultation is free of charge, and fees are quoted according to the case.

In closing

The fact that violations have accumulated cannot itself be undone. But when and how that fact is brought forward is still a matter of choice. Whether the conditions in Article 24-3, item (ii) are met, whether the bar on landing is one year or five or ten, and what circumstances end up on the record when special permission to stay is considered: most of these turning points lie at the very first step.

This article is a general explanation. For an individual case, please consult a lawyer directly. The past examples described here rest on the particular circumstances of those cases and do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Author

Daisuke Matsumura, Attorney at Law

Dai-ichi Tokyo Bar Association (registration number 59077, admitted 2019)

Funado International Law Office (Fuse Building Main Wing 3F, 3-4-10 Takada, Toshima-ku, Tokyo)

Principal areas of focus: criminal defence for foreign nationals and immigration procedures, with a client base centred on Chinese nationals.

Results include an acquittal in a case under the Stimulants Control Act (possession for the purpose of profit), a non-prosecution disposition in a specialised fraud case, and the grant of special permission to stay in a case regarded as difficult.

Contact

Funado International Law Office

Website: https://matsumura-lawoffice.jp/

WeChat ID: matsumura1119

Other language versions of this article

日本語 / 简体中文 / 繁體中文 / Tiếng Việt / 한국어