Choosing to Leave Japan After an Overstay: How Your Departure Route Decides When You Can Return

Many people who have stayed in Japan past the expiry of their period of stay eventually reach the same conclusion: this cannot continue, and it is time to go home. Once that decision is made, it can feel as though nothing is left but to pack and go to the airport. That is not how the law works. Even when the outcome is the same departure, the legal route you take out of Japan determines whether you may return one year later, five years later, ten years later, or whether you face a denial of landing with no fixed period at all. Going home is not the end of your relationship with Japan. It is the point at which the next chapter is designed.

Why consult a lawyer if I have already decided to go home?

Because the same decision, carried out through different procedures, produces very different consequences. Departure in an overstay case generally follows one of two routes: departure under the departure order system (Article 24-3 of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, the Immigration Control Act, 出入国管理及び難民認定法), or removal through deportation proceedings. Which route applies is fixed by the statute according to when you come forward, to which office, and in what form. If you have already decided to leave, you are still at the stage where the entrance to the procedure can be chosen, and that is when advice is worth having.

Will I be able to return to Japan in one year, five years, or ten years?

Article 5, paragraph 1, item (ix) of the Immigration Control Act sets a period of denial of landing (上陸拒否期間) that depends on how you left Japan.

• A person who departed under a departure order: one year from the date of departure (Article 5(1)(ix)(e)).
• A person falling under Article 24-3, item (i)(b), that is, someone who expressed the intention to leave after a violation investigation had begun, who departs under a departure order and thereafter seeks to engage in activities under the status of Temporary Visitor: five years from the date of departure (Article 5(1)(ix)(f)).
• A person subject to deportation who received a decision under Article 52, paragraph 5 and left voluntarily within the time limit (other than for the purpose of a temporary visit): one year (Article 5(1)(ix)(b)).
• A person who was deported with no prior record of deportation or of departure under a departure order: five years (Article 5(1)(ix)(c)).
• A person who was deported and who already had such a record: ten years (Article 5(1)(ix)(d)).
• A person deported on grounds falling under Article 24, item (iv), sub-items (o) through (yo): no fixed period (Article 5(1)(x)).

Separately, a record of punishment under narcotics and stimulant drug legislation results in denial of landing with no time limit under Article 5(1)(v). The same act of going home can therefore mean one year, ten years, or an indefinite bar.

If I leave under a departure order, am I guaranteed to return after one year?

Not necessarily. The default is one year under Article 5(1)(ix)(e). However, if you fall under Article 24-3, item (i)(b), meaning that you expressed your intention to leave only after a violation investigation had already begun, and you later seek to enter as a Temporary Visitor, the period becomes five years under Article 5(1)(ix)(f). Sub-item (a) covers a person who, "before the commencement of a violation investigation under Article 27, appeared voluntarily at an immigration office with the intention of departing from Japan promptly." Sub-item (b) covers a person who, "after the commencement of a violation investigation and before receiving the notice under Article 47, paragraph 3, expressed to an immigration inspector or immigration control officer the intention of departing from Japan promptly." The dividing line is timing itself.

The departure order system is also available only if all five requirements of Article 24-3 are met: falling under sub-item (a) or (b) above (item (i)); not falling under Article 24, items (iii) through (iii)-5, item (iv) sub-items (c) through (yo), item (viii) or item (ix) (item (ii)); not having been sentenced, after entering Japan, to a kōkinkei (custodial sentence) for offences including breaking into a residence, counterfeiting of currency, documents, securities or payment card electromagnetic records, gambling, homicide, injury, unlawful capture and confinement, kidnapping and abduction, theft and robbery, fraud and extortion, or handling of stolen property, together with certain offences under related special statutes (item (iii)); never having been deported from Japan and never having departed under a departure order (item (iv)); and being expected to depart promptly and with certainty (item (v)). If even one requirement is missing, the departure order route is closed.

Can I simply buy a ticket and leave from the airport myself?

That will not necessarily produce the same result. What Article 24-3, item (i)(a) requires is that, before a violation investigation under Article 27 has begun, the person "appeared voluntarily at an immigration office" intending to leave Japan promptly. Whether someone who discloses an overstay only at departure control is treated as falling within sub-item (a) is a different question altogether. That is precisely why coming forward in advance at a regional immigration services bureau carries legal weight.

What should I put in order in Japan before I leave?

The essential task is to gather, before departure, the documents that become difficult or impossible to obtain once you have left: your passport (and, if expired or lost, a reissued passport from your country's embassy or consulate in Japan); records of marriage, birth and parentage; proof of where you have lived; records of income, tax payment and social insurance contributions; school records for any children; and material showing your ties to your workplace and local community.

These documents serve two purposes. While the procedure remains open, they are the evidence supporting the matters listed in Article 50, paragraph 5: the reasons for wishing to remain, family relationships, conduct, the circumstances of entry into Japan, the length of stay and the legal status held during it, the facts constituting the grounds for deportation, and the need for humanitarian consideration. Once the period of denial of landing has run, the same material becomes the record of your life in Japan and your family ties when you apply to come back. Assembling it from abroad afterwards costs time and money, and some of it cannot be obtained at all. Unpaid wages, your lease, mobile phone contract and bank accounts, and the immigration position of family members who will remain in Japan, should likewise be settled before you go.

Once the period of denial of landing ends, can I automatically enter Japan again?

No. Expiry means only that the ground for denial of landing under Article 5(1)(ix) no longer applies. To enter Japan you must again show that your intended activity falls within a status of residence, satisfy the landing permission criteria where they apply, obtain a visa, and pass landing examination. The fact that you once overstayed, or were deported, is naturally taken into account in that examination. Time does not erase the record.

Is there any way to enter Japan during the period of denial of landing?

There is an exceptional route: special permission to land under Article 12, paragraph 1. Even where a person is found at landing examination not to meet the conditions for landing, and the case has passed through a hearing and an objection has been filed with the Minister of Justice, the Minister may grant special permission to land; item (iii) of that paragraph refers to a case in which "the Minister of Justice finds that there are other grounds on which landing should be specially permitted." This remains an exception. It requires concrete, documented reasons why landing should be permitted, such as a spouse or child in Japan, and the outcome depends on the individual circumstances. It is not a basis on which to plan a departure. The sounder approach is to assume the period will apply in full, and to concentrate on the part that can still be chosen now: whether that period is one year rather than five.

What difference does coming forward before being detected actually make?

The contrast is at its sharpest where the person has decided to leave. Appearing voluntarily at an immigration office before a violation investigation has begun places you within Article 24-3, item (i)(a); provided the other requirements are met, departure under a departure order carries a one-year period of denial of landing (Article 5(1)(ix)(e)). Expressing the intention to leave only after the investigation has begun (sub-item (b)) means five years if you later seek to enter as a Temporary Visitor (Article 5(1)(ix)(f)). If detection means another requirement of Article 24-3 can no longer be met, the departure order route disappears entirely, and deportation carries five years (Article 5(1)(ix)(c)), or ten years where there is a prior record of deportation or of departure under a departure order (sub-item (d)).

The Guidelines on Special Permission to Stay, revised in March 2024 and in force from 10 June 2024, also state expressly that "the foreign national appeared voluntarily at a regional immigration services bureau in order to report their unlawful stay" is treated as a positive factor. Circumstances change: people who intended to leave sometimes decide, as the procedure unfolds, to seek permission to stay after all, and whether the record shows a voluntary appearance matters greatly at that point. Conversely, a prolonged period of unlawful residence is assessed as a negative factor, so time spent hesitating carries its own cost.

About our office

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

Mr. Matsumura handles every stage personally, from the first detention visit through to the conclusion of trial; the work is not delegated to clerks or junior lawyers. The office has a dedicated in-house Chinese interpreter experienced in cases involving foreign nationals, so that a client can rely on an interpreter working for them, separate from the interpreter appointed by the investigating authorities. For languages other than Chinese, an interpreter is arranged according to the requirements of the case. Renewal or change of status of residence after criminal proceedings conclude is handled on a one-stop basis with an affiliated immigration solicitor (行政書士).

Two examples may be helpful. In one, a client who had entered as a tourist had a child with a Japanese woman, lost his status of residence, and was arrested and prosecuted. The office negotiated with the authorities to complete the marriage and acknowledgment of paternity, analysed the immigration authorities' published precedents, and obtained special permission to stay in a single round of proceedings.

In another, a woman wrongly accused of promoting unlawful employment faced deportation. The office brought litigation questioning the established practice that grounds for deportation require neither intent nor negligence and pursued it to the appellate level; special permission to stay was subsequently granted.

Even where the premise of the consultation is that you will return home, the choice of departure route, the documents to gather beforehand, the position of family members remaining in Japan, and preparation for a future return can all be addressed together. The first consultation is free of charge, and fees are quoted according to the case.

In closing

For someone who has already decided to leave, the remaining choice is when and how to go, and that choice determines whether your next arrival in Japan is one year away, or five, or ten. The window for acting is limited, so please seek advice as soon as the decision is made.

This article is a general explanation. For your own situation, please consult a lawyer directly. Past case results reflect the particular circumstances of those cases 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 (3F Fuse Building Main Wing, 3-4-10 Takada, Toshima-ku, Tokyo)

Concentrates on criminal defence for foreign nationals and immigration procedures, with a particular focus on clients of Chinese nationality.

Case results include an acquittal in a prosecution under the Stimulants Control Act (possession for the purpose of profit), a non-prosecution disposition in a specialised fraud case, and special permission to stay in a case regarded as exceptionally 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