Turning Yourself In to Immigration in Japan: How Voluntary Reporting Is Weighed for Special Permission to Stay

If your period of stay has expired and you are still living in Japan, the same question probably comes back to you again and again: should I go to the Immigration Services Agency myself and report my situation? Many people hesitate because they fear being detained on the very day they walk in, or because they assume that being honest will simply lead to removal anyway. Months, and sometimes years, pass while that decision is postponed. This article explains where the fact that you turned yourself in voluntarily sits within the decision on special permission to stay (在留特別許可, zairyū tokubetsu kyoka), by reference to Article 50 of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (the Immigration Control Act, 入管法) and to the Guidelines on Special Permission to Stay, which were revised in March 2024 (Reiwa 6) and took effect on 10 June 2024.

Does turning yourself in voluntarily count in your favour for special permission to stay?

Yes. The Guidelines state expressly that the fact that the foreign national voluntarily appeared at a regional immigration services office in order to report their unlawful stay is to be treated as a positive factor. This appears under the heading of other circumstances, which means the act of voluntary reporting is officially recognised as something that moves the balance in your favour.

It is important, however, to understand the limits of that. Voluntary reporting is one positive factor. It is not, on its own, decisive. The Guidelines set out a framework in which positive and negative factors are weighed together, and the outcome turns on the individual circumstances of each case. The accurate way to put it is not that reporting yourself guarantees permission, but that failing to report yourself means one favourable factor you can never obtain.

What does the Minister of Justice actually consider?

Article 50, paragraph (5) of the Immigration Control Act now sets the relevant considerations out in the statute itself: the reasons for wishing to remain in Japan; family relationships; conduct; the circumstances in which the person came to Japan; the length of stay in Japan; the person's legal status during that period; the facts constituting the ground for deportation; and the need for humanitarian consideration. In addition, domestic and international circumstances, and the effect on unlawful residents in Japan, together with other circumstances, are to be taken into account.

Because these considerations are written into the article, you can address each of them one by one, with documents and with explanation. The fact that you came forward voluntarily bears on the assessment of your conduct, on your attitude towards the facts that constitute the ground for deportation, and on the other circumstances heading.

What kind of document are the Guidelines?

They are an administrative statement of how the discretion will be exercised. They were revised in March 2024 and, in line with the amended Immigration Control Act, took effect on 10 June 2024. The Guidelines describe special permission to stay as an exceptional and benevolent measure granted to a foreign national who ought to be deported from Japan.

That characterisation matters. If you have remained in Japan beyond your period of stay, you already fall within a ground for deportation under Article 24, item (iv)(b) of the Immigration Control Act. Deportation is therefore the starting point, and special permission is the exception you are asking for. Unless positive factors are built up with concrete evidence, the case drifts towards the ordinary result. Seen from the other direction: if the process begins because you were detected and investigated rather than because you came forward, the positive factor of voluntary reporting is simply not available to you from the outset.

If I report myself, will special permission to stay be granted?

Not necessarily. The Guidelines assess negative factors at the same time, and a long period of unlawful residence is treated as a negative factor. Even where there has been voluntary reporting, the outcome becomes harder if a long unlawful stay, problems relating to conduct, or breaches of other laws are also present.

This is where the passage of time cuts both ways. The longer you stay, the deeper your life becomes rooted in Japan, but the negative factor of prolonged unlawful residence also accumulates. Deciding to wait and see for a while longer means growing the favourable and the unfavourable circumstances at the same time.

When and how is special permission to stay applied for?

The main clause of Article 50, paragraph (1) provides that, even where a person falls within the category of persons subject to deportation, the Minister of Justice may grant special permission to stay upon application by the foreign national or ex officio, where one of the items applies. Most overstay cases are decided under item (v) of that paragraph, which covers cases where the Minister finds other circumstances warranting special permission to stay. Three provisions govern the timing.

• Article 50, paragraph (2) | The application 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 by a foreign national subject to a supervision measure decision. The right to apply therefore arises only once one of those measures has been taken. Before that stage, the work consists of urging the Minister to act ex officio.
• Article 50, paragraph (3) | Once a written deportation order has been issued, no application can be made. From that point the remedies are judicial: an action for revocation and an application for a stay of execution.
• Article 50, paragraph (4) | Special permission may be granted only after the person has accepted the finding under Article 47, paragraph (3) or the determination under Article 48, paragraph (8), or after the Minister of Justice has decided that the objection is without grounds.

Article 50, paragraph (10) requires that, where special permission is refused, the person must be notified promptly in writing with reasons. Where permission is granted, Article 50, paragraph (6) provides for the status of residence and period of stay to be determined, and conditions may be attached.

Does a case involving only overstaying face the stricter test?

No, and this is an easily overlooked but significant advantage. The proviso to Article 50, paragraph (1) applies to a person sentenced to kōkinkei (custodial sentence) for life or for a term exceeding one year, excluding a person given a suspension of execution of the whole sentence and a person given a partial suspension where the unsuspended part is one year or less, and to a person falling under Article 24, item (iii)-2, item (iii)-3, item (iv)(c), or items (iv)(o) through (iv)(yo) (24条4号オからヨまで). For those persons, permission may be granted only where there are found to be special circumstances such that refusing permission to stay in Japan would lack humanitarian consideration.

Overstaying falls under Article 24, item (iv)(b), which is not in that list, so the higher threshold does not apply. Conversely, if another offence results in an unsuspended custodial sentence exceeding one year, the proviso is triggered and the outlook becomes considerably harder. That is precisely why the work of mitigating the criminal outcome and the work of obtaining special permission to stay must be designed together from the very first steps.

Can turning myself in still lead to a criminal case?

It can. Remaining in Japan beyond the authorised period of stay is an offence under Article 70, paragraph (1), item (v) of the Immigration Control Act. The statutory penalty is kōkinkei (custodial sentence) of not more than three years or a fine of not more than three million yen, or both. Overstaying is not merely an administrative matter.

The statutory penalty is the same regardless of how long the overstay lasted. What changes is the prosecutor's choice of disposition and the range of sentencing. In practice, the length of the unlawful stay is central, because it measures how long the unlawful state of affairs was allowed to continue. Cases where the period is comparatively short, where the person came forward voluntarily, and where the basis of daily life and family relationships is clear tend towards lighter dispositions; cases running over several years, involving unlawful work or additional violations such as forged documents, tend towards heavier ones. Outcomes vary from case to case, and any realistic assessment has to be made individually.

Note also that the severity of the criminal outcome and the question of whether you can remain in Japan are separate. Even with a suspended sentence or a non-prosecution disposition, deportation proceedings continue under Article 24, item (iv)(b). Article 24, item (iv)(i) makes a person sentenced to kōkinkei for life or exceeding one year subject to deportation while excluding those given a full suspension of execution, but it is a mistake to read that exclusion alone and conclude that a suspended sentence puts you in the clear.

What acting before you are detected actually changes

Voluntary reporting does more than earn a positive factor under the Guidelines. It also produces two concrete legal differences.

First, whether the departure order system is available. Article 24-3 covers persons falling under Article 24, item (ii)-4, item (iv)(b), or items (vi) to (vii), and requires all five conditions to be met. Item (i)(a) covers a person who, before the commencement of a violation investigation under Article 27, voluntarily appeared at an immigration services office with the intention of leaving Japan promptly. Item (i)(b) covers a person who, after a violation investigation has begun but before receiving the notice under Article 47, paragraph (3), states to an immigration inspector or immigration control officer an intention to leave Japan promptly. The departure order procedure does not presuppose detention, and under Article 55-85, paragraph (1) the supervising immigration inspector orders prompt departure and sets a departure deadline within a period not exceeding fifteen days.

Second, the period of denial of landing. A person who leaves Japan under a departure order is denied landing for one year from the date of departure under Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(e). By contrast, a person falling under Article 24-3, item (i)(b) who leaves under a departure order and then seeks to engage in the activities of a temporary visitor faces five years from the date of departure under item (ix)(f). If detection means the conditions for a departure order are not met and deportation follows, the period is five years under item (ix)(c) where there is no previous deportation or departure order, and ten years under item (ix)(d) where there is. Where deportation follows from Article 24, items (iv)(o) through (iv)(yo), Article 5, paragraph (1), item (x) sets no fixed period at all.

In other words, the single choice of coming forward before a violation investigation begins governs three things at once: whether the milder departure order route is open; whether you may next set foot in Japan after one year, five years or ten; and whether you hold the positive factor recognised by the Guidelines when special permission to stay is considered. Once you have been detected, that choice is no longer yours to make.

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, principally for clients of Chinese nationality. Daisuke Matsumura, the attorney in charge, is a member of the Daiichi Tokyo Bar Association (registration number 59077, admitted in 2019).

Special permission to stay obtained in a single set of proceedings in a difficult case | The client had entered Japan for tourism and had a child with a Japanese woman, then lost his status of residence, fell into unlawful residence, and was arrested and prosecuted. Because the marriage and acknowledgment of paternity had not been completed, the authorities initially declined to accept the matter. Mr Matsumura negotiated with the authorities from a constitutional standpoint and secured both the marriage and the acknowledgment, conducted defendant and witness examination with the criminal trial in view, gathered favourable evidence although almost no official documents were obtainable from the country of nationality, and analysed past cases in which permission had been granted. Special permission to stay was obtained in a single set of proceedings.

A woman facing deportation over facilitation of unlawful work | The client was wrongly accused of facilitating unlawful employment and faced deportation. Against the established practice that grounds for deportation require neither intent nor negligence, the office brought proceedings testing the reach of the principle of individual culpability and litigated up to the appellate level. Special permission to stay was subsequently granted by the immigration authorities.

Three points define how we work. From the first visit at the detention facility through to the close of trial, Mr Matsumura handles every stage personally; the work is not delegated to clerical staff or to junior lawyers. For Chinese, a dedicated in-house interpreter experienced in cases involving foreign nationals is available, separate from the interpreter appointed by the investigating authorities and working for the client; for other languages, an interpreter is arranged according to the requirements of the case. Renewal or change of status of residence after the criminal proceedings end is handled together with an affiliated administrative scrivener. The first consultation is free of charge, and fees are quoted according to the case.

In closing

Coming forward voluntarily is a positive factor under the Guidelines, and it also determines whether the departure order route is open and how long you will be denied landing. The window in which that choice remains available is limited. The stage at which you are still hesitating is exactly the stage at which it is worth assembling your documents and planning when and how to act.

This article is a general explanation. For your own case, please consult a lawyer directly. Past results reflect the particular circumstances of those cases and do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Author

Daisuke Matsumura, Attorney at Law

Daiichi Tokyo Bar Association (registration number: 59077, admitted 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, principally for clients of Chinese nationality.

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