I Still Have My Residence Card, So Why Am I Overstaying? Revocation of Status of Residence in Japan

2026/08/27

Your residence card (zairyu card) is still in your wallet. Your photo, your card number and the expiry date are all printed on it, and that date has not passed yet. And yet a notice arrived from the immigration authorities saying that your status of residence is to be revoked, or a police officer told you during a street check that you no longer have one. When that happens, weeks can pass simply because nobody has explained what is going on.

The key point is this: holding the plastic card and holding the legal status are two different things. This article explains, article by article, what happens if you remain in Japan after your status of residence has been revoked under Article 22-4 of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (the Immigration Control Act).

If I still have my residence card, does that mean I still have a status of residence?

Not necessarily. The residence card is a document that proves to others that you hold a status of residence. It is not the status itself. Once the status has been revoked, it is gone even though the card in your hand still shows a future expiry date.

Assuming that you must be fine because you still have the card is therefore dangerous. If you remember receiving official mail about revocation, or if you moved house and have received nothing from immigration since, the first step is to confirm what your current status of residence actually is.

What is revocation of status of residence under Article 22-4?

Revocation is governed by Article 22-4 of the Immigration Control Act. Where a person is found to fall within one of the grounds listed item by item in that article, the Minister of Justice may revoke a status of residence that has already been granted. The listed grounds include obtaining permission for landing, or permission to change or extend a status of residence, by deception or other wrongful means; failing to carry out the activities corresponding to the granted status for a substantial period; and failing to comply with obligations to notify the authorities of your place of residence.

Which item you are said to fall under matters a great deal for everything that follows. Before revocation is decided, the law provides an opportunity for the person concerned to state their opinion. This is not a formality. It is the place to argue, with supporting documents, that the facts have been misunderstood, or that there was a legitimate reason why the activities could not be carried out. In addition, a deadline for leaving Japan is designated in some revocation cases and not in others. Where a deadline has been designated and you stay beyond it, the problem becomes the same kind of problem as unlawful residence.

What criminal offence do I commit if I stay in Japan after revocation?

If you remain in Japan after revocation, you fall under Article 70, paragraph (1), item (iii), item (iii)-2 or item (iii)-3 of the Immigration Control Act, depending on the ground of revocation and the circumstances. Under the main clause of that paragraph, the statutory penalty is a kokinkei (custodial sentence) of up to three years, or a fine of up to 3,000,000 yen, or both.

These are different items from Article 70, paragraph (1), item (v), which applies to a person who stays beyond the period of stay, but the statutory penalty is identical. In other words, remaining in Japan after revocation is not merely an administrative matter; it is a crime. The idea that this concerns only immigration and has nothing to do with the police is wrong. On terminology, kokinkei is the single custodial sentence created by the 2022 amendment to the Penal Code, in force from 1 June 2025, which merged the two former custodial sentences into one.

Does revocation make me subject to deportation?

Yes. For a person whose status of residence has been revoked, Article 24, item (ii)-2 through item (ii)-4 of the Immigration Control Act set out the corresponding grounds for deportation. Which of them applies depends on the ground of revocation and on whether a departure deadline was designated at the time of revocation.

The procedure broadly runs as follows. It begins with a violation investigation by an immigration control officer (Article 27 onwards), proceeds through detention under a written detention order (Article 39) or a supervision measure decision (Article 44-2, paragraph (7)), and then to a violation examination by an immigration inspector (Article 45 onwards) and a finding (Article 47, paragraph (3)). If you do not accept the finding, you may request a hearing (Article 48) and receive a determination from a special inquiry officer (Article 48, paragraph (8)). If you do not accept that, you may file an objection with the Minister of Justice (Article 49). At the decision stage the case divides into special permission to stay (Article 50) or issuance of a written deportation order (Article 51).

Can I still leave under a departure order after my status has been revoked?

It depends. A departure order under Article 24-3 is available only to a foreign national who falls under Article 24, item (ii)-4, item (iv)(b), or items (vi) through (vii). Of the deportation grounds connected with revocation, only item (ii)-4 is listed; item (ii)-2 and item (ii)-3 are not. Even where the category is eligible, all five of the following requirements must be met.

Falling under either (a) or (b). Under (a), the person voluntarily appeared at an immigration office, before the start of a violation investigation under Article 27, with the intention of leaving Japan promptly. Under (b), after a violation investigation has begun 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.
Not falling under any of Article 24, items (iii) through (iii)-5, item (iv)(c) through (iv)(yo), item (viii) or item (ix).
Not having been sentenced to a kokinkei, after entering Japan, for offences under the Penal Code chapters on breaking into a residence, counterfeiting of currency, forgery of documents, forgery of securities, electromagnetic records of payment cards, gambling, homicide, injury, unlawful capture and confinement, kidnapping and abduction, theft and robbery, fraud and extortion, or stolen property, or for certain offences under the Act on Punishment of Physical Violence and Others, the Act on Prevention of Larceny, the Act on Prohibition of Possession of Special Picking Tools, the Act on Punishment of Acts Inflicting Death or Injury on Others by Driving a Motor Vehicle, or the Act on Prevention of Disposal of Stolen Specified Metal Products.
Never having been deported from Japan in the past, and never having left Japan under a departure order under Article 55-85, paragraph (1).
Being reliably expected to leave Japan promptly.

Where the requirements are met, the supervising immigration inspector promptly orders departure and sets a departure deadline within a period not exceeding 15 days (Article 55-85, paragraph (1)). Conditions may be attached, such as restrictions on residence and on the area of movement (paragraph (3) of the same article). Unlike deportation, the departure order procedure does not presuppose detention.

How much difference does it make to when I can return to Japan?

A great deal. The periods of denial of landing are set out in Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix) and related provisions, and they depend on how you leave.

A person who leaves under a departure order: one year from the date of departure (Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(e)).
A person falling under Article 24-3, item (i)(b), that is, someone who expressed the intention to leave only after the violation investigation had begun, who leaves under a departure order and then seeks to engage in the activities of a temporary visitor: five years from departure (item (ix)(f)).
A person who was subject to deportation but received a decision under Article 52, paragraph (5) and left voluntarily within the deadline, other than for the purpose of temporary visit: one year from departure (item (ix)(b)).
A person deported who has no prior history of deportation or departure order: five years from departure (item (ix)(c)).
A person deported who already has such a history: ten years from departure (item (ix)(d)).
A person deported as falling under Article 24, item (iv)(o) through (iv)(yo): no fixed period (Article 5, paragraph (1), item (x)). There is likewise no fixed period under Article 5, paragraph (1), item (v), which concerns punishment for violations of narcotics-related laws.

One year, five years, ten years, or no fixed period at all. In most cases the dividing line is drawn by the stage of the procedure at which the person took the initiative.

Can I still ask for special permission to stay after revocation?

In some cases, yes. 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, where the person falls under one of the listed items: holding permission for permanent residence (item (i)); having previously had a registered domicile in Japan as a Japanese national (item (ii)); residing under the control of another person as a result of trafficking in persons (item (iii)); having been recognised as a refugee or as a person under complementary protection (item (iv)); and, in addition, where the Minister of Justice finds that there are circumstances warranting special permission to stay (item (v)). Most revocation cases are considered within the framework of item (v).

Procedurally, the application is made by a foreign national who has been detained under a written detention order or who has received a supervision measure decision (Article 50, paragraph (2)). Before that stage, the work consists of asking the authorities to act on their own initiative. No application can be made after a written deportation order has been issued (paragraph (3)). The decision is made after the person has accepted the finding or the determination, or after the objection has been dismissed as groundless (paragraph (4)). The matters to be considered are set out in paragraph (5): the reasons for wishing to stay, family relationships, conduct, the circumstances of entry into Japan, the length of residence in Japan and the legal status held during that time, the facts giving rise to the ground for deportation, and the need for humanitarian consideration, together with domestic and international circumstances, the effect on illegal residents in Japan, and other circumstances. Where permission is granted, a status of residence and period of stay are determined and conditions may be attached (paragraph (6)). Where permission is refused, the person must be promptly notified in writing with reasons attached (paragraph (10)).

One point here can work in favour of revocation cases. The proviso to Article 50, paragraph (1) imposes a heavier requirement on a person sentenced to a kokinkei for an indefinite term or for a term exceeding one year (excluding a person given a suspension of the whole sentence, and a person given a partial suspension whose unsuspended part is one year or less), and on a person falling under Article 24, item (iii)-2, item (iii)-3, item (iv)(c), or item (iv)(o) through (iv)(yo): permission may then be granted only where there are special circumstances such that refusing it would be found to lack humanitarian consideration. The revocation-related grounds, Article 24, items (ii)-2 to (ii)-4, are not on that list. Like unlawful residence under Article 24, item (iv)(b), they are not subject to that heavier requirement. That said, if a custodial sentence of more than one year without suspension is imposed in another case, the proviso then applies. This is where the outlook in a criminal case and the outlook for staying in Japan are directly linked.

The Guidelines on Special Permission to Stay, revised in March 2024 and in force from 10 June 2024, describe special permission as an exceptional measure granted as a matter of grace to a foreign national who should otherwise be deported. They expressly state that voluntarily appearing at a regional immigration office in order to report one's own unlawful residence is treated as a positive factor, while prolonged unlawful residence is assessed as a negative factor.

Why it matters to act before you are caught

Revocation cases have a feature the other categories do not. From a certain day onwards, you may be living exactly as before while, in law, you no longer hold a status of residence. The moment a revocation notice, or a notice of the opportunity to state your opinion, arrives is in practice the first fork in the road.

After that, what decides the length of the period of denial of landing is the difference between (a) and (b) in Article 24-3, item (i). If you go to an immigration office yourself before a violation investigation under Article 27 begins, you fall under (a), and the period after leaving under a departure order is one year (Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(e)). If you express your intention to leave only after the investigation has begun, you fall under (b), and if you later seek to enter as a temporary visitor it becomes five years (item (ix)(f)). If you are caught and no longer satisfy the second, third or fourth requirement for a departure order, that route closes altogether and the case proceeds as deportation, with five years (item (ix)(c)) or ten years (item (ix)(d)). If your aim is to stay in Japan the direction is the same: the Guidelines list voluntary appearance as a positive factor and prolonged unlawful residence as a negative one. Doing nothing works against you on both counts.

About our office

Funado International Law Office (Fuse Building Main Wing 3F, 3-4-10 Takada, Toshima-ku, Tokyo) concentrates on criminal defence for foreign nationals and on immigration procedures, with a client base centred on Chinese nationals. Cases are handled by Daisuke Matsumura, attorney at law (Daiichi Tokyo Bar Association, registration number 59077, admitted in 2019).

Three points describe how we work. First, Mr Matsumura personally handles every stage, from the first detention visit through to the close of trial; the work is not delegated to clerks or junior lawyers. Second, a dedicated in-house Japanese-Chinese interpreter experienced in cases involving foreign nationals is on staff, so that a client can rely on an interpreter working for them and not only on the interpreter assigned by the investigating authorities; for other languages, we arrange an interpreter according to the case. Third, matters arising after the criminal case ends, such as extension or change of a status of residence, are handled on a one-stop basis with an affiliated administrative scrivener.

Two examples may be useful. In one case, a client who had come to Japan as a tourist had a child with a Japanese woman, lost his status of residence and was arrested and prosecuted for unlawful residence. The marriage and acknowledgement of paternity were incomplete and the authorities initially refused the filings; the office negotiated from a constitutional standpoint, secured the marriage and acknowledgement, conducted the defendant questioning and witness examination with the criminal trial in mind, analysed past grant decisions of the immigration authorities, and obtained special permission to stay in a single set of proceedings.

In another case, a woman wrongly accused of promoting illegal employment faced deportation. Against the established practice that a ground for deportation requires neither intent nor negligence, the office brought proceedings testing the reach of the principle of culpability and litigated up to the appellate level. Special permission to stay was subsequently granted by the immigration authorities.

The first consultation is free of charge. Fees are quoted according to the case. Where the person concerned is in custody, an enquiry from a family member is equally welcome.

In closing

In revocation cases the available options narrow step by step: at the stage of the opportunity to state your opinion, at the stage before a violation investigation begins, and at the stage before a written deportation order is issued. The earlier the stage, the more choices remain open.

This article is a general explanation. For an individual case, please consult a lawyer directly. The past cases described here reflect their own particular circumstances and are not a guarantee that a similar result will be obtained.

Author

Daisuke Matsumura, attorney at law

Daiichi Tokyo Bar Association (registration number: 59077, admitted in 2019)

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

Concentrates on 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 decision not to prosecute in a specialised fraud case, and the grant of special permission to stay in cases regarded as difficult.

Contact

Funado International Law Office

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

WeChat ID: matsumura1119

I Still Have My Residence Card, So Why Am I Overstaying? Revocation of Status of Residence in Japan