Deportation Order Issued in Japan: Revocation Litigation and Stay of Execution

You have been living in Japan past the expiry of your period of stay, and now a written deportation order (退去強制令書) has been issued. Or perhaps the Minister of Justice has ruled that your objection has no grounds, and a family member held in detention has called to ask whether anything can still be done. The stage at which the deportation order is issued is the hardest point in the whole process. It is not, however, the point at which legal options run out. Outside the immigration procedure itself, one road remains open: relief through the courts. This article explains, provision by provision, what can be done after a deportation order has been issued, focusing on two tools: an action to revoke the disposition, and an application to stay its execution.

Can I still ask for special permission to stay after a deportation order is issued

Within the immigration procedure, as a rule you can no longer apply. Article 50, paragraph (3) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (Immigration Control Act) provides that once a written deportation order has been issued, an application for special permission to stay (在留特別許可) can no longer be made. The issuance of the order therefore marks the closing of the route to permission inside the immigration system.

The right to apply arises, under Article 50, paragraph (2), only for a foreign national who has been detained under a written detention order or who has received a supervision measure decision. The procedure runs from the violation investigation (Article 27 onward), through a written detention order (Article 39) or a supervision measure decision (Article 44-2, paragraph (7)), the violation examination (Article 45 onward), the finding (Article 47, paragraph (3)), a request for an oral hearing (Article 48), the judgment (Article 48, paragraph (8)), and an objection to the Minister of Justice (Article 49). At the end of that road the case divides into either special permission to stay (Article 50) or issuance of a written deportation order (Article 51), as reflected in Article 50, paragraph (4). If the order has been issued, your case has gone down the second branch.

That does not mean the case can no longer be contested. From this point on, the question is no longer whether immigration will grant permission, but whether a court will review the decision immigration has already made.

What legal options remain after the order has been issued

Broadly, two. The first is to file an action asking a court to revoke the disposition (revocation litigation). The second is to apply, together with that action, for a stay of execution so that the disposition is not carried out while the case is pending. Both are ordinary administrative proceedings under the Administrative Case Litigation Act, and both take the matter outside the immigration authorities and place it before a court as a neutral third party.

The dispositions usually contested are the Minister of Justice's ruling that the objection has no grounds, and the issuance of the written deportation order by the supervising immigration inspector that follows it. Depending on the case, a decision refusing special permission to stay may also be contested. Article 50, paragraph (10) requires that, when such a refusal is made, the person must be promptly notified in writing with a statement of reasons. That written statement of reasons is the key to understanding how each circumstance was weighed, and it is the starting point for framing the issues in litigation.

Note also that administrative litigation is subject to a filing period. Once that period passes, the disposition can generally no longer be challenged. After a deportation order is issued, time itself works against you. At this stage, consulting a lawyer even a day earlier widens the range of options.

Does filing a lawsuit stop my removal from Japan

Filing alone does not stop it. Under the Administrative Case Litigation Act, bringing an action to revoke a disposition does not, in itself, suspend the effect or the execution of that disposition. This is the principle that litigation does not stay execution. If you assume that filing suit has made you safe, removal may be carried out while the case is still being heard.

For that reason, the action to revoke is filed together with an application to the court for a stay of execution. A stay presupposes that the main action is already pending before the court, so the filing and the application have to be designed as a single package. In practice, applications are sometimes made separately as to the removal element and as to the detention element. Which part you ask the court to stay depends on the person's custody situation and on the family's circumstances.

When will a court grant a stay of execution

As a general framework, a court may order a stay where it finds an urgent necessity to avoid serious harm that would arise from the disposition. Conversely, a stay is not granted where, among other things, the main action appears to be without grounds. It is therefore not enough to say in the abstract that removal would be difficult for you. You need concrete material showing what irreparable disadvantage you and your family would suffer if removal were actually carried out.

How a court will assess this varies widely from case to case, and no outcome can be guaranteed. One thing is certain, however: once removal has actually been carried out, meaningful restoration becomes extremely difficult even if the litigation continues. That is why, at this stage, securing time is as practically important as refining the substantive arguments.

If I win the case, will I be allowed to stay in Japan

If a judgment of revocation becomes final, the disposition is treated as never having existed, and the immigration authorities must carry out the procedure again. The judgment itself does not grant a status of residence. But once the ruling and the deportation order are revoked, the procedure returns to the stage at which special permission to stay is considered, and the question of permission is examined afresh.

The framework for that examination is set out in Article 50, paragraph (5): the reasons for wishing to stay, family relationships, conduct, the circumstances of entry into Japan, the length of stay in Japan and the legal status held during that time, the facts constituting the ground for deportation, and the need for humanitarian consideration, together with domestic and international conditions, the effect on illegal residents in Japan, and other circumstances. The evidence assembled during litigation about family life, daily living, and health carries directly into that next stage. Litigation and the immigration procedure are not separate worlds; they have to be designed as one continuous line.

One further point works in your favour. Where the only ground is illegal overstay under Article 24, item (iv)(b), the heightened requirement in the proviso to Article 50, paragraph (1) does not apply — that is, the demanding standard limiting permission to cases where refusing to allow the person to stay would be found to lack humanitarian consideration. This remains true even after a deportation order has been issued. Conversely, where the person has received an actual custodial sentence of indefinite duration or exceeding one year of kōkinkei (custodial sentence), that proviso does apply, and the outlook becomes considerably harder.

Should I keep fighting, or leave Japan voluntarily

The answer turns largely on whether you hope to come back to Japan. Even after a written deportation order has been issued, if the person obtains a decision under Article 52, paragraph (5) and departs voluntarily by the set deadline, the period of denial of landing is one year from the date of departure (Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(b); this does not apply where the later entry is for short-term stay activities). If instead the person is simply deported, the period is five years from the date of deportation where there is no prior history of deportation or departure order (item (ix)(c)), and ten years where such a history exists (item (ix)(d)). Where deportation is based on the serious grounds listed in Article 24, item (iv) (オ through ヨ), Article 5, paragraph (1), item (x) imposes denial of landing with no fixed period. A record of punishment under narcotics-related laws likewise carries no time limit, under Article 5, paragraph (1), item (v).

In other words, although the outcome looks the same — you leave Japan — the procedure and the stage at which you leave determine whether you can set foot in Japan again after one year, five years, or ten years. Whether to keep fighting or to draw a line and prepare for a future return is not a decision to make alone. It requires setting out your family's circumstances, your children's schooling, your health, and conditions in your home country, and comparing the options with the legal consequences stated accurately.

Why it matters to act before you are detected

The range of available options before and after a deportation order is issued is entirely different. A person who, before the violation investigation begins, goes voluntarily to a regional immigration services bureau with the intention of leaving Japan promptly may fall under Article 24-3, item (i)(a). If all the requirements for a departure order under that article are met, the case may proceed under the departure order procedure, which does not presuppose detention, and the supervising immigration inspector sets a departure deadline within a period not exceeding 15 days (Article 55-85, paragraph (1)). The period of denial of landing in that case is one year from the date of departure (Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(e)). By contrast, where the intention to depart is expressed only after the violation investigation has begun (Article 24-3, item (i)(b)), the period becomes five years if the person later seeks to engage in short-term stay activities (Article 5, paragraph (1), item (ix)(f)).

The Guidelines on Special Permission to Stay (revised in March 2024 and in force from 10 June 2024) describe special permission as an exceptional and discretionary measure, and expressly state that the fact that the foreign national voluntarily appeared at a regional immigration services bureau to report their illegal stay is treated as a positive factor. Prolonged illegal residence, on the other hand, is assessed as a negative factor. A single act of coming forward changes the assessment in the criminal case, in the residence case, and in any future application to return to Japan.

It should also be said that overstaying is not merely an administrative matter. Article 70, paragraph (1), item (v) makes it an offence to remain in Japan beyond the period of stay without obtaining an extension or a change, and the statutory penalty is kōkinkei (custodial sentence) of up to three years or a fine of up to three million yen, or both. Even if the criminal case ends in a suspended sentence or a decision not to prosecute, deportation proceedings still go forward under Article 24, item (iv)(b). The criminal outlook and the residence outlook are separate questions, and they must be planned together from the very first step.

About our office

Funado International Law Office (3F Fuse Building Main Wing, 3-4-10 Takada, Toshima-ku, Tokyo) focuses on criminal defence for foreign nationals and on immigration procedures, primarily for clients of Chinese nationality. Cases are handled by Daisuke Matsumura, attorney at law (Daiichi Tokyo Bar Association, registration number 59077, admitted 2019).

From the first detention visit through to the close of trial, Mr. Matsumura handles every stage personally; the work is not delegated to clerical staff or junior lawyers. The stage after a deportation order is issued is a race against time and, at the same time, close analytical work on the record the immigration authorities have built. Checking how each circumstance was weighed, and narrowing down what to contest, requires a lawyer who has followed the case from the beginning.

For Chinese, a dedicated in-house interpreter experienced in cases involving foreign nationals is present at the office; for other languages, an interpreter is arranged according to the case. You can therefore rely on an interpreter working for you, separate from the interpreter designated by the investigating authorities. It is not unusual for information to diverge between a detained client and the family outside, delaying decisions, so being able to share the situation accurately in your own language matters especially at this stage. For renewal or change of status of residence after the criminal process ends, we work with an affiliated administrative scrivener so that everything is handled in one place.

Two related matters we have handled. In the first, 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 acknowledgment of paternity had not been completed and were initially refused; we negotiated with the authorities from a constitutional standpoint, completed both, gathered favourable evidence even though almost no official documents were available from the country of nationality, and, by analysing past cases in which permission had been granted, obtained special permission to stay in a single set of proceedings.

In the second, a woman was wrongly accused of promoting illegal employment and faced deportation. Against the established practice that intent or negligence is not required for a ground of deportation, we brought proceedings testing the reach of the principle of individual responsibility and contested the matter through to the appellate stage. Special permission to stay was subsequently granted by the immigration authorities. Both outcomes rested on the particular circumstances of those cases and are not a guarantee of the same result. The first consultation is free of charge, and fees are quoted according to the case.

Closing

Even after a written deportation order has been issued, the road of judicial relief — revocation litigation and a stay of execution — remains open. But there is a filing period, and once removal has been carried out, meaningful restoration is extremely difficult. How quickly you act determines how wide your options are.

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 (3F Fuse Building Main Wing, 3-4-10 Takada, Toshima-ku, Tokyo)

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

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 special fraud case, and obtaining special permission to stay in a matter 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