I Forgot to Renew My Period of Stay in Japan. Is Overstaying Still a Crime?

You look at your residence card and realise the expiry date has already passed. Work, family and daily life took over, and the renewal application simply slipped your mind. This is a common situation, and the first thing most people ask is the same: "I did not do it on purpose, so is it still a crime?" That reaction is entirely understandable. This article explains what happens under Japanese law when you overstay because you forgot to renew your period of stay, looking separately at the criminal side and the immigration side, and citing the relevant provisions of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (Immigration Control Act, 出入国管理及び難民認定法).

Is forgetting to renew my period of stay still a crime in Japan?

Yes, it can be. Even where the overstay is the result of forgetfulness, the offence of illegal residence may be established. Article 70, paragraph (1), item (v) of the Immigration Control Act applies to "a person who stays in Japan beyond the period of stay (including the period during which the person may stay in Japan under the provisions of Article 20, paragraph (6)) without obtaining an extension or a change of that period." Under the main clause of the same paragraph, the statutory penalty is kōkinkei (custodial sentence) of up to three years or a fine of up to three million yen, and both may be imposed together.

The important point is what the provision actually requires. It requires that you remained in Japan beyond your period of stay without obtaining an extension or a change. It does not require that you intended to settle here unlawfully. In other words, the elements of the offence can be satisfied even without any deliberate plan to stay on.

How far will "I did not know" or "I forgot" get me?

Criminal liability in principle requires intent. Article 38, paragraph (1) of the Penal Code provides that "an act performed without the intent to commit a crime is not punishable, except as otherwise specially provided by law." So if you genuinely had no awareness at all that your period of stay had expired, there is, as a matter of legal theory, room to argue that intent is absent.

Whether that explanation is accepted in practice is a separate question. The expiry date of the period of stay is printed on the residence card, and information about renewal procedures is provided. Moreover, if you suspected that the date might already have passed but carried on with your life in Japan without checking, that state of mind can amount to what Japanese criminal law calls conditional intent (未必の故意). Whether intent existed is not decided by your own account alone. It is assessed from objective circumstances: whether there is any trace that you checked your residence card, your correspondence with your employer or school, and whether you had begun preparing any renewal application.

For that reason, "I simply forgot" is not a sufficient explanation on its own. You need to set out, with supporting material, why you did not notice, when and how you eventually realised, and what you did after realising. How that account is constructed affects both the severity of the criminal disposition and the assessment of special permission to stay discussed below.

If I had no intent, does that mean I will not face deportation?

No. This is where many people are mistaken. The criminal question and the question of whether you can remain in Japan proceed along separate tracks.

Article 24, item (iv)(b) of the Immigration Control Act designates as a ground for deportation "a person who stays in Japan beyond the period of stay without obtaining an extension or a change of that period." The provision is framed around the objective state of affairs of remaining in Japan after the period has expired. On its face, it does not require intent or negligence. Accordingly, even where you genuinely forgot, deportation proceedings may be commenced on the basis that you fall under Article 24, item (iv)(b).

The same applies where the prosecutor decides not to prosecute, or where the court suspends execution of the whole sentence. Article 24, item (iv)(i) treats a person sentenced to life imprisonment or to a kōkinkei exceeding one year as subject to deportation, but it expressly excludes persons who have received a suspension of execution of the whole sentence. So a sentence such as "one year and six months, suspended for three years" does not fall under item (iv)(i). But because item (iv)(b) already applies, it is wrong to conclude that "the sentence was suspended, so I can stay." A lighter criminal outcome and the ability to remain in Japan must be planned for as two distinct objectives.

What if I applied for renewal but the expiry date arrived before a decision?

That situation is treated differently. Article 20, paragraph (6) of the Immigration Control Act provides that a person who has applied for an extension may continue to stay in Japan under the previous status of residence for a defined period while the application is pending. This is generally known as the special period. During that period you are not an illegal overstayer, even though the date printed on your residence card has passed.

This is precisely why Article 70, paragraph (1), item (v) takes the trouble to say "the period of stay (including the period during which the person may stay in Japan under the provisions of Article 20, paragraph (6))." Conversely, if no application was filed before the expiry date, no special period arises. In any "I forgot to renew" consultation, the first thing to establish is whether any application was filed before the date passed. That single fact is the dividing line.

I have realised my period of stay has expired. What should I do first?

One option is to report yourself voluntarily to a regional immigration services bureau before an investigation into violations is commenced by an immigration control officer under Article 27 and following of the Immigration Control Act. This decision has a direct bearing on when you may be able to return to Japan.

Article 24-3 sets out the requirements for a departure order. Item (i)(a) covers "a person who, before the commencement of an investigation into violations under Article 27, has voluntarily appeared at an immigration services office with the intention of promptly departing from Japan." Item (i)(b) covers "a person who, after the commencement of the investigation but before receiving the notice under Article 47, paragraph (3), has expressed to an immigration inspector or immigration control officer the intention of promptly departing from Japan." To qualify for a departure order, all of the following must also be satisfied.

• The person does not fall under Article 24, items (iii) through (iii)-5, item (iv)(c) through (iv)(yo), item (viii) or item (ix).
• Since entering Japan, the person has not been sentenced to a kōkinkei for offences including breaking into a residence; counterfeiting of currency, documents, securities or electromagnetic records of payment cards; gambling; homicide; injury; unlawful capture and confinement; kidnapping and abduction; theft and robbery; fraud and extortion; or offences relating to stolen property, nor for offences under Articles 1, 1-2 and 1-3 of the Act on Punishment of Physical Violence, the Act for Prevention of Robbery, 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 Causing Death or Injury by Driving a Motor Vehicle, or Article 22 of the Act on Prevention of Disposal of Stolen Specified Metal Products.
• The person has not previously been deported from Japan, nor departed under a departure order issued under Article 55-85, paragraph (1).
• The person is expected to depart from Japan promptly, with certainty.

Where a departure order is issued, the supervising immigration inspector orders prompt departure and sets a departure deadline not exceeding fifteen days (Article 55-85, paragraph (1)). Conditions such as restrictions on residence and area of movement may be attached (paragraph (3)). Unlike deportation proceedings, the departure order procedure is not premised on detention.

Can special permission to stay be granted where the overstay was caused by forgetting to renew?

For those with family in Japan, for whom simply leaving is not a realistic option, special permission to stay (Article 50) becomes the central issue. Article 50, paragraph (1) provides that even where a person is subject to deportation, the Minister of Justice may grant special permission to stay, on the application of the foreign national or ex officio, if any of the listed items applies. Most overstay cases, including those caused by a missed renewal, are considered under item (v): "where the Minister of Justice otherwise finds circumstances warranting special permission to stay."

The matters to be considered are set out in Article 50, paragraph (5): the reasons for wishing to stay, family circumstances, conduct, the circumstances of entry into Japan, the length of stay in Japan and the legal status held during that time, the facts constituting the ground for deportation, and the need for humanitarian consideration, as well as domestic and international circumstances, the effect on illegal residents in Japan, and other matters. In a missed-renewal case, the material typically shows that there was nothing improper about the entry into Japan, that the legal status held during the stay was originally lawful, and that the pattern of daily life and employment has not changed.

Where the case involves illegal residence alone (Article 24, item (iv)(b)), the more demanding requirement in the proviso to Article 50, paragraph (1) does not apply. That proviso limits permission, for persons sentenced to life imprisonment or to a kōkinkei exceeding one year and certain other categories, to cases where refusing permission would be found to lack humanitarian consideration in light of special circumstances. Not being caught by that proviso is a meaningful advantage. Conversely, if an actual custodial sentence exceeding one year is imposed, the proviso applies and the outlook becomes considerably harder.

It is also understood that the case examples of special permission to stay published by the Immigration Services Agency include cases in which the person overstayed after failing to file a renewal application. The published examples are written in abstract terms so that individuals cannot be identified, and they cannot be read as an assurance that a similar case will be approved. The work still consists of building up the specific facts of your own case, factor by factor.

Procedurally, an application for special permission to stay is made by a foreign national detained under a written detention order or subject to a decision on supervisory measures (Article 50, paragraph (2)), and no application can be made once a written deportation order has been issued (paragraph (3)). Where permission is refused, the decision must be communicated promptly in writing with reasons (paragraph (10)). The window in which you can act is limited.

Why it matters to come forward before you are detected

In missed-renewal cases, there is often a stretch of time in which the person has realised the problem but, not knowing what to do, has left it alone. In legal terms, that empty period converts into concrete disadvantage.

Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix) sets the periods of denial of landing by category. A person who departs under a departure order is denied landing for one year from the date of departure (sub-item (e)). By contrast, where a person falling under Article 24-3, item (i)(b), that is, someone who expressed the intention to depart only after the investigation into violations had begun, departs under a departure order and then seeks to engage in activities as a temporary visitor, the period is five years from the date of departure (sub-item (f)). Further, if detection means the requirements for a departure order are not met at all, the case proceeds as deportation: five years for a person with no prior deportation or departure order (sub-item (c)), and ten years for a person with such a history (sub-item (d)). Where deportation follows from Article 24, item (iv)(e) through (iv)(yo), Article 5, paragraph (1), item (x) imposes denial of landing with no fixed period.

From the same single event, forgetting to renew, the number of years before you can return to Japan differs depending on whether you came forward before the investigation began, expressed your intention after it began, or were detected. In addition, the Guidelines on Special Permission to Stay, revised in March 2024 and in force from 10 June 2024, describe special permission to stay as "an exceptional and discretionary measure taken in favour of a foreign national who ought to be deported from Japan," while expressly stating that the fact that the foreign national voluntarily appeared at a regional immigration services bureau in order to report their illegal residence is taken into account as a positive factor. Prolonged illegal residence, on the other hand, is assessed as a negative factor. The longer the forgotten period runs, the more that negative factor accumulates.

That said, voluntary reporting should not be done without a clear view of what follows. Do you meet the requirements for a departure order? Are you seeking special permission to stay, and if so, what material needs to be assembled? Deciding the strategy before you appear makes a substantial difference to the outcome.

About our office

Funado International Law Office (Fuse Building Main Wing 3F, 3-4-10 Takada, Toshima-ku, Tokyo) focuses on criminal defence for foreign nationals and immigration procedures, primarily for clients of Chinese nationality. The attorney in charge, Daisuke Matsumura, is a member of the Dai-Ichi Tokyo Bar Association (registration number 59077, admitted 2019).

Three features define how we work. First, Mr Matsumura personally handles every stage, from the first visit at the detention facility through to the conclusion of trial; the work is not delegated to clerical staff or junior attorneys. Second, we have a dedicated Chinese-language interpreter on staff who is experienced in cases involving foreign nationals. For languages other than Chinese, we arrange an interpreter according to the requirements of the case. Being able to use an interpreter who works for the client, separately from the interpreter designated by the investigating authorities, matters when the client's account must be conveyed precisely. Third, for renewals and changes of status of residence after the criminal process ends, we work with an affiliated administrative scrivener so that the matter is handled in one place. Designing the criminal and immigration sides together is particularly important in missed-renewal cases.

Two related matters we have handled are set out below.

Special permission to stay, regarded as difficult to obtain, secured in a single procedure. A client who had entered Japan as a tourist had a child with a Japanese woman, lost his status of residence, and was arrested and prosecuted for illegal residence. Mr Matsumura negotiated with the authorities from a constitutional standpoint, completed the marriage and acknowledgment of paternity, gathered favourable evidence and analysed past approval examples, and special permission to stay was obtained.

Special permission to stay granted to a woman who had faced deportation. The client was wrongly accused of promoting illegal employment. Against the established practice that grounds for deportation require neither intent nor negligence, we brought proceedings testing the reach of the principle of individual culpability and litigated through to the appellate stage; special permission to stay was subsequently granted. The matter confronted directly the issue discussed in this article.

The first consultation is free of charge. Fees are quoted according to the circumstances of the case.

Closing

Missed-renewal cases have a particular character: the fault on the client's side is small, yet the legal disadvantages accumulate steadily as time passes. The shorter the gap between the day you realise and the day you act, the wider the range of options that remain open. Rather than letting the days pass without knowing what to do, please speak with us.

This article is a general explanation. For your own case, please consult a lawyer directly.

The past matters described above rest on their own particular circumstances and are not a guarantee of 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)

Focuses on criminal defence for foreign nationals and immigration procedures, primarily for clients of Chinese nationality.

Results include an acquittal in a case under the Stimulants Control Act (possession for the purpose of profit), a decision not to prosecute in a specialised fraud case, and special permission to stay obtained in matters 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