Denied Special Permission to Stay in Japan: How to Use the Written Reasons Under Article 50(10)

You stayed in Japan past the end of your period of stay, you were placed in deportation proceedings, you asked for special permission to stay, and the answer was no. Most people who receive that document feel their mind go blank. What was missing? What happens now? Can I still remain in Japan? The document, however, is not simply a note saying that permission was refused. Article 50, paragraph (10) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (Immigration Control Act) requires that, when a disposition not to grant special permission to stay is made, the person must be notified promptly by a document stating the reasons. Because reasons must be given, that document contains the material you need in order to plan a next step.

If special permission to stay is refused, am I told the reasons?

Yes. Under Article 50, paragraph (10), a refusal cannot be handled with a verbal explanation at the counter. It must be communicated in a written document that states the reasons.

Before reading the document itself, work out where it sits in the procedure. Under Article 50, paragraph (4), special permission to stay 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 an objection is without grounds. Under Article 50, paragraph (2), an application may be made by a foreign national who has been detained under a written detention order or who has received a supervision measure decision. And under Article 50, paragraph (3), no application can be made once a written deportation order has been issued. If you misjudge which stage you are at, you will also choose the wrong next step.

Why must an administrative decision state its reasons at all?

Two purposes are generally given. First, requiring reasons pushes the deciding authority toward careful and rational consideration and restrains arbitrary decisions. Second, it gives the person affected a foothold for knowing what to challenge. For those purposes, the reasons should be specific enough for the recipient to understand which facts were treated as established, how the relevant circumstances were evaluated, and how the conclusion followed.

Under the published guidelines, special permission to stay is described as an exceptional and discretionary measure extended to a foreign national who would otherwise be deported. Being discretionary in that sense does not remove the duty to explain. In addition, Article 50, paragraph (5) now sets out in the statute itself the circumstances that must be considered. With the factors fixed by statute and the statement of reasons required by statute, it becomes possible to test, against the wording of the document, which factor was evaluated in what way.

What does the written statement of reasons contain, and where should I start reading?

In most cases it lists favourable and unfavourable circumstances along the lines of the factors in Article 50, paragraph (5), and then states the refusal as the outcome of weighing them together. Article 50, paragraph (5) lists the reason for wishing to remain, family relationships, conduct, the circumstances of entry into Japan, the length of stay in Japan, the legal status held during that period, the facts giving rise to deportation, and the need for humanitarian consideration, together with domestic and international conditions and the effect on illegal residents in Japan, among other matters. The approach to evaluating these factors appears in the guidelines on special permission to stay (revised in March 2024 and in force from 10 June 2024). Those guidelines expressly treat the fact that the person came forward voluntarily to a regional immigration services bureau in order to report their unlawful stay as a positive element, while a prolonged unlawful stay is treated as a negative element.

Read the document in three layers. The first layer is the facts taken as established. The second is the evaluation attached to those facts. The third is the overall weighing of positive against negative elements. If the first layer contains an error or an omission, there is room to correct it with evidence. If the dispute lies in the second layer, you need fuller material showing the reality of your daily life. Where the only ground of deportation is unlawful residence under Article 24, item (iv)(b), the circumstances of entry, the length of stay and the facts giving rise to deportation are difficult to contest, whereas family relationships, conduct and the need for humanitarian consideration can look quite different depending on what is submitted.

Is there anything I can still do after receiving a refusal?

Yes, but what is available depends on the stage you have reached.

• If you dispute the immigration inspector's finding under Article 47, paragraph (3), you may request a hearing under Article 48. If you dispute the special inquiry officer's determination under Article 48, paragraph (8), you may file an objection with the Minister of Justice under Article 49.
• Once the objection has been decided to be without grounds and a written deportation order has been issued under Article 51, no application can be made under Article 50, paragraph (3). At that point the matter moves into judicial remedies: an action to revoke the issuance of the written deportation order, together with an application to stay its execution.
• If circumstances change after the decision, for example marriage, acknowledgment of a child, the birth of a child, or the discovery of an illness requiring treatment, evidence of that change can be submitted with a request that the authorities act on their own authority.
• Leaving Japan and returning later with a proper status of residence, once the period of denial of landing has run, is also a realistic design in some cases.

How is the statement of reasons used in a later application or in litigation?

Use it as a map for identifying the issues. Once you know which points were viewed negatively, you can narrow where to gather evidence, and you can reorganise the case by assigning material to each of the factors in Article 50, paragraph (5). It also gives you a starting point for comparing your own situation with the granted and refused examples published by the Immigration Services Agency. If the case goes to court, the wording of the document itself shows which facts and evaluations formed the basis of the decision.

Look at the criminal side at the same time. The proviso to Article 50, paragraph (1) adds a heavier requirement for certain people, including those sentenced to kōkinkei (custodial sentence) for an indefinite term or for a term exceeding one year, excluding those whose sentence was suspended in whole and those given a partially suspended sentence where the unsuspended part is one year or less. For them, permission may be granted only where there are special circumstances such that refusing to permit residence would be found to lack humanitarian consideration. A case involving only unlawful residence under Article 24, item (iv)(b) does not fall under that proviso, which is a favourable point. Conversely, an actual custodial sentence exceeding one year makes the outlook markedly harder. Note also that a suspended sentence does not put you in the clear. Article 24, item (iv)(i) (24条4号リ) does contain an exclusion for suspended sentences, but unlawful residence is already a ground for deportation under Article 24, item (iv)(b).

Why acting before you are detected matters

Much of the framework is settled long before anyone reads a statement of reasons. The dividing line is whether you were detected or came forward yourself.

The departure order system under Article 24-3 applies only where all five requirements are met. Item (i)(a) covers a person who, before a violation investigation under Article 27 has begun, comes forward voluntarily to an immigration services office intending to leave Japan promptly. Where a person departs under a departure order in that way, the period of denial of landing is one year from the date of departure under Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(e). By contrast, where the intention to depart is expressed after the violation investigation has begun but before the notice under Article 47, paragraph (3) is received, which is item (i)(b), the period becomes five years from the date of departure if the person later seeks to enter for short-term stay activities, under Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(f). If detection means the requirements of Article 24-3 are not met, the departure order is unavailable and deportation follows: five years from the date of departure where there is no previous deportation or departure order, under Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(c), and ten years where there is, under item (ix)(d). Combined with the guidelines treating voluntary reporting as a positive element, the best preparation for a favourable statement of reasons lies in how you act at that earlier stage.

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 2019). He personally handles every stage, from the first detention visit through to the close of trial, without delegating to clerical staff or junior lawyers. A dedicated Chinese interpreter experienced in cases involving foreign nationals is based at the office, so that clients can use an interpreter working on their behalf rather than only the interpreter appointed by the investigating authorities; for other languages, an interpreter is arranged according to the needs of the case. Renewal or change of status of residence after the criminal process is handled together with a partner administrative scrivener.

Two examples. In one, special permission to stay was obtained in a single set of proceedings in a case regarded as difficult. The client had entered Japan as a tourist and 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 were initially not accepted by the authorities. Mr Matsumura negotiated with the authorities from a constitutional standpoint, achieved the marriage and the acknowledgment, gathered favourable evidence even though almost no official documents from the country of nationality existed, and analysed past granted cases before obtaining permission.

In the other, a woman accused of promoting illegal employment faced deportation. She was wrongly accused. Against the established practice that grounds for deportation require neither intent nor negligence, proceedings were brought questioning the reach of the principle of individual responsibility, and the matter was contested 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. If you already have a written statement of reasons for refusal, bring it with you and we can look at what can be done next.

Closing

A written refusal is not only a piece of paper telling you that something has ended. It also tells you what you would need to show next. What you can do, however, changes with the stage, and once a written deportation order is issued the route of application closes under Article 50, paragraph (3). If you have received such a document, confirm as soon as possible where you stand in the procedure.

This article is a general explanation. For your own case, please consult a lawyer directly. The past results described above rest on 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, 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 non-prosecution disposition in a specialised fraud case, and 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