What Japan's Published Immigration Cases Reveal About Turning Yourself In Versus Being Caught

If you are living in Japan after your period of stay has expired, you may have already found the case summaries that the Immigration Services Agency of Japan publishes on special permission to stay. Many people read them and come away more confused than before, because the summaries are arranged by family circumstances and length of residence, and it is hard to see where one's own situation fits. There is, however, one line running through those cases that is rarely stated in the headings but that changes almost everything that follows: whether the person came forward to the immigration office on their own, or whether the overstay came to light through police detection and arrest. This article explains how to read the published cases through that lens, with the statutory provisions set out clearly.

What kind of cases does the Immigration Services Agency publish

To make the operation of special permission to stay (在留特別許可) more transparent, the Immigration Services Agency publishes, alongside its Guidelines on Special Permission to Stay, summaries of cases in which permission was granted and cases in which it was refused. The Guidelines were revised in March of Reiwa 6 (2024) and took effect on 10 June of that year, in step with the amended Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (Immigration Control Act).

Each summary records the nationality, the residence situation, family relationships, how the person came to fall under a ground for deportation, and whether there was a criminal disposition. The details are abstracted so that no individual can be identified. That abstraction makes the summaries harder to read, but it also means that whatever remains on the page is what the authorities considered important enough to write down.

What should you look at first when reading a published case

Look first at how the case reached the immigration authorities. Did the person go to a regional immigration services bureau and report their own unlawful residence, or were they detected or arrested by the police and then handed over to immigration? Almost every other line in the summary is coloured by that single fact.

The reason this matters is that the trigger is not merely a question of impression. It changes which provisions apply. A voluntary report opens the separate route of a departure order (Article 24-3 of the Immigration Control Act), and it changes the period during which re-entry to Japan is denied. Where the case begins with detection, the criminal process and the deportation process usually run in parallel, and the range of available options narrows.

Why do the published cases include so many voluntary reports

The published cases include a substantial number of situations in which the person came forward and reported their own unlawful residence. This is not a coincidence; it follows from how the Guidelines are written.

The Guidelines describe special permission to stay as a measure granted exceptionally and as a matter of grace to a foreign national who ought to be deported from Japan. Against that background, they set out how each of the factors listed in Article 50, paragraph (5) of the Immigration Control Act is to be assessed. Among the points expressly stated is that the fact that the foreign national appeared voluntarily at a regional immigration services bureau in order to report their unlawful residence is treated as a positive factor.

Article 50, paragraph (5) lists the following as factors to be considered: 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 constituting the ground for deportation, and the need for humanitarian consideration. It further requires consideration of domestic and international circumstances, the effect on unlawful residents in Japan, and other circumstances. A voluntary report bears directly on the assessment of conduct and of those other circumstances.

None of this means that coming forward guarantees permission. The Guidelines also treat a prolonged period of unlawful residence as a negative factor. The accurate way to put it is that a voluntary report is one element assessed together with everything else.

In cases that begin with detection or arrest, what is weighed most heavily

In cases whose starting point is detection or arrest, one can see examples in which the criminal disposition and prior offences are assessed as serious matters. Here too there is a statutory basis.

First, the proviso to Article 50, paragraph (1) provides that where the person has been sentenced to life imprisonment or to a kōkinkei (custodial sentence) exceeding one year, excluding a person given a suspended sentence for the whole of the punishment and a person given a partly suspended sentence whose unsuspended portion is one year or less, special permission to stay may be granted only where there are found to be special circumstances such that refusing to permit residence in Japan would be lacking in humanitarian consideration. In other words, once the sentence becomes an actual custodial sentence exceeding one year, a heavier requirement is added.

Second, a guilty verdict for a violation of the narcotics-related statutes falls under the ground for deportation in Article 24, item (iv)(h) (チ). It applies even where the sentence is a fine and even where the sentence is suspended. In that situation the denial of landing under Article 5, paragraph (1), item (v) carries no fixed period at all.

By contrast, unlawful residence itself is a ground for deportation under Article 24, item (iv)(b) (ロ), and it is not subject to the additional requirement in the proviso to Article 50, paragraph (1). A case involving unlawful residence alone stands in a comparatively favourable position on this point. Where cases beginning with detection tend to end badly, it is often because something further has been added on top of the overstay.

If my situation resembles a published case, will the outcome be the same

Not necessarily. Because the summaries are abstracted to protect the identity of the individuals concerned, there is always the possibility that the decisive circumstance is one that was never written down.

In addition, Article 50, paragraph (5) expressly lists domestic and international circumstances and the effect on unlawful residents in Japan among the matters to be considered. These are not facts about the individual at all; they concern the state of society as a whole. The statute itself therefore makes clear that part of the assessment may shift over time.

The published cases are still worth reading. By observing which circumstances the authorities chose to record, and which circumstances they set side by side, you can see the framework of assessment. The proper use of the material is not to predict an outcome, but to work out what needs to be built up in your own case and what documents will be needed to show it.

It is also worth knowing that when a disposition refusing special permission to stay is made, the authorities must promptly give notice in writing with reasons attached (Article 50, paragraph (10)). Because reasons are given, it becomes possible to consider what to do next in response to them.

Does the trigger matter outside special permission to stay

It does. In fact, the clearest difference arises at an earlier stage.

A departure order under Article 24-3 is available only where all five requirements in items (i) to (v) of that Article are satisfied. Item (i) divides into two limbs. Limb (a) (イ) covers a person who, before the commencement of a violation investigation under Article 27, appeared voluntarily at an immigration services office with the intention of leaving Japan promptly. Limb (b) (ロ) covers a person who, after the commencement of a violation investigation but before receiving the notice under Article 47, paragraph (3), states to an immigration inspector or immigration control officer that they intend to leave Japan promptly.

The periods of denial of landing then divide as follows.

• A person who departs under a departure order: one year from the date of departure (Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(e) (ホ)).
• A person falling under Article 24-3, item (i)(b) (ロ) who departs under a departure order and thereafter seeks to engage in the activities of a temporary visitor: five years from the date of departure (Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(f) (ヘ)).
• A person who has been deported and who had no prior record of deportation or departure order: five years from the date of deportation (Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(c) (ハ)).
• A person who has been deported and who already had such a record: ten years from the date of deportation (Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(d) (ニ)).
• A person deported for falling under the sub-items of Article 24, item (iv) from オ to ヨ: no fixed period (Article 5, paragraph (1), item (x)).

The departure order procedure also does not presuppose detention. The supervising immigration inspector orders departure promptly and fixes a departure deadline within a period not exceeding fifteen days (Article 55-85, paragraph (1)), and may attach conditions such as restrictions on residence and area of movement (paragraph (3) of the same Article).

What it means to act before you are found

Reading the published cases with the trigger in mind, the difference between coming forward and being caught falls into two layers.

The first layer is statutory. As set out above: appearing voluntarily before a violation investigation begins means one year (Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(e)); stating the intention only after it has begun means five years for a later temporary-visitor entry (item (ix)(f)); and where the requirements for a departure order are not met, deportation brings five years (item (ix)(c)) or ten years (item (ix)(d)). This is not a matter of official discretion. The statute itself draws the line.

The second layer concerns practice. As noted, a voluntary report is a positive factor under the Guidelines. Beyond that, someone who comes forward can enter the procedure with their documents in order. Marriage, acknowledgment of a child, an explanation of work history, tax records, securing a guarantor: none of these can be assembled quickly. Material put together in haste after an arrest can invite suspicion simply because of the order in which it appeared.

It should also be said plainly that overstaying is not only an administrative problem but a criminal offence. Article 70, paragraph (1), item (v) makes it an offence to remain in Japan beyond one's period of stay without obtaining an extension or a change, and the statutory penalty is a kōkinkei (custodial sentence) of up to three years or a fine of up to three million yen, or both (main clause of that paragraph). The penalty range is the same however long the overstay lasted; what varies is the prosecutor's choice of disposition and the range of sentencing. Cases involving a short period, a voluntary report and a clear basis of daily life tend towards lighter dispositions, while cases running for years, accompanied by unlawful work or other violations, tend towards heavier ones, with considerable variation between cases.

Finally, the severity of the criminal disposition and the question of whether you can remain in Japan are separate matters. Even where the criminal case ends in a suspended sentence or a decision not to prosecute, the deportation procedure still proceeds under Article 24, item (iv)(b). Conversely, an actual custodial sentence exceeding one year brings the additional requirement in the proviso to Article 50, paragraph (1) into play, and the prospects for special permission to stay become far more difficult. For that reason, the work of mitigating the criminal disposition and the work of obtaining special permission to stay must be designed as a single strategy from the very first step.

About our office

Funado International Law Office (Fuse Building Main Wing 3F, 3-4-10 Takada, Toshima-ku, Tokyo) focuses primarily on criminal defence for foreign nationals and on immigration procedures, with a client base centred on Chinese nationals. In overstay cases, including the reading of published case summaries, we design the criminal defence work and the work of securing continued residence as one integrated strategy from the outset.

As to how we work: from the initial consultation, through visits at the police station, negotiations with the prosecutor, the conclusion of the trial, and on to the immigration procedures, attorney Daisuke Matsumura handles every stage personally, without passing the work to clerical staff or junior attorneys. For Chinese, a dedicated in-house interpreter experienced in cases involving foreign nationals is available at the office; for other languages, we arrange an interpreter according to the needs of the case. Having an interpreter who works for the client, separate from the one designated by the investigating authorities, matters a great deal for the accuracy of a statement. After the criminal proceedings conclude, renewals and changes of status of residence are handled on a one-stop basis with an affiliated administrative scrivener.

Two examples of past results follow.

Special permission to stay obtained in a single procedure in a case regarded as difficult. A client who had entered Japan for tourism had a child with a Japanese woman but lost his status of residence and was arrested and prosecuted for unlawful residence. The marriage and the acknowledgment of the child had not been completed, and the authorities initially declined to accept the filings. Attorney Matsumura negotiated with the authorities from a constitutional standpoint, secured the marriage and the acknowledgment, and conducted the defendant questioning and witness examination with the immigration-related criminal trial in mind. Despite the near absence of official documents issued by the country of nationality, favourable evidence was gathered and past grants by the immigration authorities were analysed, and special permission to stay was obtained in a single procedure.

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 intent or negligence is not required for a ground for deportation, litigation was brought questioning the reach of the principle of individual culpability, and the matter was contested through the appellate stage. Special permission to stay was subsequently granted by the immigration authorities.

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

Closing

The published cases are not a table for predicting outcomes. They are material for understanding which circumstances the authorities take seriously, and for deciding what needs to be built up in your own case. What most affects that process is the earliest choice of all: when and how you enter the procedure. The longer the wait, the narrower the road becomes.

This article is a general explanation. For your individual case, please consult a lawyer directly. Past results are based on the particular circumstances of each case 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)

Focuses primarily 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 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