Turning Yourself In for Overstaying in Japan: What Actually Happens on the Day, from Violation Investigation to Violation Examination

Your period of stay expired, and you are still living in Japan. You suspect that going to the immigration bureau yourself is better than waiting to be caught, but you do not know what will happen once you walk through that door, so weeks and then months have gone by. What happens on the day you report yourself does not depend on the mood of the officer at the counter. The Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (Immigration Control Act) sets out the order of the procedure and says who decides what, at which stage. This article follows those provisions in sequence, from the counter through to the violation examination.

Will I be detained on the spot the day I report myself?

No provision of the Immigration Control Act says that reporting yourself automatically results in detention. How your liberty is handled is decided after an immigration control officer conducts a violation investigation (Article 27), when the supervising immigration inspector decides whether to issue a written detention order (Article 39) or a decision imposing a supervision measure (Article 44-2, paragraph (7)). Detention is not the automatic starting point; it is the outcome of a decision. Even so, nobody can promise in advance how the day will end. The length of the overstay, why you came forward, whether someone can house you and vouch for you, and whether other violations are stacked on top all affect it. That is why it matters to gather your documents and organise your explanation before you go.

What happens first at the counter?

The first step is the violation investigation conducted by an immigration control officer. Article 27 provides that an immigration control officer may conduct a violation investigation with respect to a foreign national suspected of falling under a ground for deportation. Reporting yourself (shuttō shinkoku) means going to the counter of a regional immigration services bureau on your own initiative, before that investigation has begun. At the counter you submit your residence card, your passport and a written statement of why you have come, and you are questioned about why your period of stay lapsed and how you have lived since. Overstaying is a ground for deportation under Article 24, item (iv)(b), and at the same time a criminal offence under Article 70, paragraph (1), item (v), punishable by a kōkinkei (custodial sentence) of up to three years or a fine of up to three million yen, or both. Go in understanding that what you say that day can affect not only the administrative procedure but the criminal one.

What questions will I be asked in the interview?

The questions fall into two groups: the facts of the violation, and the circumstances justifying your staying. The first covers when you entered Japan and on what status of residence, when your period of stay expired, why you did not apply for an extension or change of status, and whether you worked after the expiry. The second concerns the reality of your life here, and tracks the factors listed in Article 50, paragraph (5): your reasons for wishing to stay, your family relationships, your conduct, the circumstances in which you came to Japan, the length of your residence and your legal status during that time, the facts constituting the ground for deportation, and the need for humanitarian consideration. That paragraph adds that domestic and international circumstances, and the effect on illegal residents in Japan, are also considered.

Your statements go into a written record that is referred to again later. If you answer from a hazy memory and that answer later conflicts with the documents, the credibility of your whole account suffers. Saying plainly that you do not remember, and answering only after checking, protects you. Never sign a record whose terms you have not understood.

What is the difference between a detention order and a supervision measure?

A written detention order is issued by the supervising immigration inspector, at the request of an immigration control officer, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is subject to deportation (Article 39); the procedure then continues with the person held in detention. A decision imposing a supervision measure (Article 44-2, paragraph (7)) instead lets the person remain in the community under a supervisor while the procedure continues, subject to conditions on residence and movement and to reporting duties, with penalties prescribed for breach (Article 70, paragraph (1), items (ix) and (x)). The two differ greatly in terms of liberty, but occupy the same position in the deportation procedure, and the right to apply for special permission to stay arises only once one of them is in place (Article 50, paragraph (2)).

Does the violation examination under Article 45 take place the same day?

The violation examination is a separate procedure conducted by an immigration inspector, not by the officer who carried out the investigation. Article 45 provides that when an immigration inspector takes delivery of a suspect from an immigration control officer, the inspector must promptly examine whether that person is subject to deportation. Some cases run straight from the interview through to the violation examination on the same day; in others you are summoned again later.

If the examination finds that you are subject to deportation, you are notified of that finding (Article 47, paragraph (3)). If you disagree, you may request a hearing (Article 48); if you also disagree with the special inquiry officer's determination (Article 48, paragraph (8)), you may file an objection with the Minister of Justice (Article 49). The deadline for requesting a hearing is short and fixed by statute, so check the notice on the spot. Where you accept the finding or determination, or the objection is dismissed as groundless, that is the point at which special permission to stay is decided (Article 50, paragraph (4)).

Can I apply for special permission to stay that same day?

Article 50, paragraph (2) provides that an application for special permission to stay is made to the Minister of Justice, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Ministry of Justice ordinance, by a foreign national detained under a written detention order or subject to a decision imposing a supervision measure. Simply arriving at the counter does not yet give you a right to apply; that right arises once one of those is in place. Before that, what you can do is present the circumstances and evidence so as to invite the authorities to act on their own initiative.

The decisive deadline is Article 50, paragraph (3): once a written deportation order has been issued, no application for special permission to stay can be made. After that, only judicial avenues remain, such as an action to revoke the disposition and an application for a stay of execution. That is why preparation should begin on day one. Note also that the heavier requirement in the proviso to Article 50, paragraph (1), under which permission is granted "only where there are special circumstances such that refusing to permit the person to stay would be found to lack humanitarian consideration", applies to persons sentenced to an indefinite kōkinkei (custodial sentence) or to a kōkinkei exceeding one year, and to certain other categories. A case of overstaying alone (Article 24, item (iv)(b)) is not subject to it. That is a favourable starting point.

Could I be given a departure order on the day instead?

Yes. A departure order (Article 24-3) is available to a person falling under Article 24, item (ii)-4, item (iv)(b), or items (vi) to (vii) who satisfies all five requirements: that the person either appeared at an immigration office voluntarily, intending to leave Japan promptly, before the violation investigation began (Article 24-3, item (i)(a)), or stated an intention to leave promptly to an immigration inspector or immigration control officer after the investigation began but before receiving the notice under Article 47, paragraph (3) (item (i)(b)); that the person does not fall under Article 24, items (iii) to (iii)-5, item (iv)(c) to (iv)(yo), item (viii) or item (ix); that the person has not, after entering Japan, been sentenced to a kōkinkei (custodial sentence) for certain offences, including breaking into a residence, counterfeiting of currency, documents, securities or payment card electromagnetic records, gambling, homicide, injury, unlawful capture and confinement, kidnapping, theft and robbery, fraud and extortion and offences relating to stolen property, or certain offences under the Act on Punishment of Physical Violence and Others, the Act for Prevention of Larceny and Others and the Act on Punishment of Acts Inflicting Death or Injury on Others by Driving a Motor Vehicle; that the person has never been deported or left Japan under a departure order; and that the person is expected to leave Japan promptly and reliably.

The departure order procedure does not presuppose detention. The supervising immigration inspector orders prompt departure and sets a deadline not exceeding fifteen days (Article 55-85, paragraph (1)), and may attach conditions such as restrictions on residence and area of movement (paragraph (3)). Remaining past that deadline gives rise to a further offence under Article 70, paragraph (1), item (viii)-2, so it must be kept.

Why coming forward before you are caught changes the outcome

Read through the statute, the day shows that when you come forward creates the branch points that follow. If you appear voluntarily before the violation investigation begins, you fall under Article 24-3, item (i)(a), and where you leave under a departure order the period of denial of landing is one year from departure (Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(e)). If you state your intention to leave only after the investigation has begun (item (i)(b)), that period becomes five years if you later seek to come to Japan for temporary visitor activities (item (ix)(f)). If being caught means you no longer satisfy the requirements for a departure order at all, the procedure moves to deportation: five years from deportation for a person with no previous deportation or departure order (item (ix)(c)), and ten years for a person who already has such a history (item (ix)(d)). The outcome may look the same, "leaving Japan", but the date you may next enter can be one, five or ten years away.

The Guidelines on Special Permission to Stay (revised March 2024, in force from 10 June 2024) describe the permission as an exceptional, discretionary measure, while expressly stating that the fact that "the foreign national voluntarily appeared at a regional immigration services bureau in order to report their illegal stay" is taken into account as a positive factor. A prolonged illegal stay, by contrast, is evaluated as a negative factor. The longer the hesitation lasts, the more only the negative factors accumulate.

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. Daisuke Matsumura, attorney at law (Dai-ichi Tokyo Bar Association, registration number 59077, admitted 2019), handles every stage personally, from the first detention visit to the close of trial, without delegating to paralegals or junior associates. A dedicated Chinese-language interpreter experienced in cases involving foreign nationals is based at our office; for other languages we arrange an interpreter according to the needs of the case. That interpreter works for the client, not for the investigating authorities who appoint their own, so you can check what is being asked and what a document means as you go. Renewals and changes of status of residence after the criminal case are handled on a one-stop basis with an affiliated immigration lawyer (gyōseishoshi).

Two examples of past results. 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 stay. The marriage and acknowledgement of paternity were incomplete and the authorities initially refused the filings; our office negotiated from a constitutional standpoint, secured the marriage and acknowledgement, and conducted the defendant questioning and witness examination with the immigration case in mind. Although official documents from his country of nationality were almost impossible to obtain, favourable evidence was assembled, and by analysing past grants by the immigration authorities, special permission to stay was obtained in a single round of proceedings. In another case, a woman wrongly accused of facilitating illegal employment faced deportation. Against the established practice that a ground for deportation requires neither intent nor negligence, our office brought litigation testing the reach of the principle of individual culpability and pursued it to the appellate stage; the immigration authorities subsequently granted her special permission to stay. Both outcomes rested on the particular circumstances of those cases and guarantee nothing. The first consultation is free of charge, and fees are quoted according to the case.

Closing remarks

The day you report yourself moves in a fixed order: violation investigation, interview, the decision on your liberty, and violation examination. Knowing what is decided at which stage makes the day far less frightening and shows what to prepare. And once you keep in mind when the right to apply for special permission to stay arises (Article 50, paragraph (2)) and when it disappears (Article 50, paragraph (3)), it is clear that the earlier you start, the better.

This article is a general explanation. Please consult an attorney directly regarding your own case. The past results described above rest on the individual 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)

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

Past results include an acquittal in a case under the Stimulants Control Act (possession for the purpose of profit), a non-prosecution decision in a special 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