Drug Offenses and Residence Status in Japan｜Deportation Risk

People who have received a suspended sentence in a drug case often say the same thing: I was not sent to prison, so I should be able to stay in Japan. That understanding does not match the text of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (hereinafter the Immigration Act).

For drug offenses, Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Act makes the fact of having been convicted, by itself, a ground for deportation. The severity of the sentence and the presence or absence of a suspension of execution do not appear anywhere among the requirements. For theft or bodily injury, a foreign national is not deported unless actually made to serve imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 1 year. Drug offenses alone are treated differently.

This article sets out, on the basis of the statutory text, which offenses and which substances fall within this provision, at what moment the deportation ground takes effect, and what remains as the legal route for keeping one's residence in Japan, namely special permission to stay.

Key points of this article

• A drug offense becomes a ground for deportation under Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Act even where the sentence is suspended, and even where the penalty is only a fine.
• The provision covers violations of the Stimulants Control Act, the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, the Act on Regulation of Cultivation of Cannabis Plants, the Opium Act, the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act, and Part II, Chapter XIV of the Penal Code.
• A violation of the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Act involving so-called dangerous drugs (designated substances) is not in that list.
• Deportation procedures do not move in earnest until the criminal judgment becomes final. An appeal to the high court and a further appeal to the Supreme Court push that moment back.
• The only legal means of maintaining residence is special permission to stay under Article 50 of the Immigration Act. The departure order system is not available.

1. Why a suspended sentence still costs you your residence status

Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Act lists, as a ground for deportation, a person who, on or after November 1, 1951, has been convicted of a violation of the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, the Act on Regulation of Cultivation of Cannabis Plants, the Opium Act, the Stimulants Control Act, the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act, or the provisions of Part II, Chapter XIV of the Penal Code.

The point that deserves attention is that the provision says nothing more than a person who has been convicted. The type of penalty, the length of the term, and whether execution of the sentence was suspended are simply not requirements. Accordingly, a person who receives the most ordinary of drug sentences, imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months with execution suspended for 3 years for self-administration of stimulants, falls under item 4(chi) by reason of the conviction itself.

The contrast with other crimes makes the structure clear. Offenses other than drug offenses are dealt with by item 4(ri) of the same Article 24. Item 4(ri) treats as a ground for deportation a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 1 year, but its proviso then excludes a person who has received a suspension of execution of the whole sentence, and a person who received a partially suspended sentence where the portion actually to be served is 1 year or less. In other words, for offenses outside the drug field, a suspended sentence means that no deportation ground arises at all.

Point of comparison	Article 24, item 4(chi) (drug offenses)	Article 24, item 4(ri) (general offenses other than drugs)
Requirement	Having been convicted	Having been sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 1 year
Suspended sentence	Not excluded (the ground applies)	Excluded by the proviso
Fine	Falls within the provision	Does not fall within the provision
Lower limit of the sentence	None specified	More than 1 year

When we say, in defending a drug case, that obtaining a suspended sentence is not a sufficient objective, this statutory structure is the reason. Viewed from the standpoint of protecting residence, what should be aimed at is a decision not to prosecute. Where the case does proceed to trial, the question becomes how to contest the case so that the client is not convicted of an offense that falls under item 4(chi) in the first place.

2. The offenses covered by item 4(chi)

Among the six bodies of legislation to which item 4(chi) refers, the principal offenses encountered in practice, together with their statutory penalties, are set out below. All custodial penalties have been unified into a single form of imprisonment with effect from June 1, 2025, so the older Japanese distinction between labor and non-labor confinement no longer exists.

Statute	Principal offense (provision)	Statutory penalty
Stimulants Control Act	Import, export or manufacture (Article 41)	Imprisonment for a definite term of 1 year or more. Where the purpose is profit, imprisonment for life or for 3 years or more
Stimulants Control Act	Possession, transfer or receipt (Article 41-2)	Imprisonment for not more than 10 years. Where the purpose is profit, imprisonment for a definite term of 1 year or more
Stimulants Control Act	Use (Article 41-3, paragraph 1, item 1)	Imprisonment for not more than 10 years
Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act	Import, export or manufacture of heroin and similar substances (Article 64)	Imprisonment for a definite term of 1 year or more
Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act	Import, export or manufacture of narcotics other than heroin and similar substances, and cultivation of narcotic raw material plants (Article 65)	Imprisonment for not less than 1 year and not more than 10 years
Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act	Possession, transfer or receipt of narcotics (Article 66)	Imprisonment for not more than 7 years
Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act	Administration of narcotics (Article 66-2). Use of cannabis now falls here	Imprisonment for not more than 7 years
Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act	Import and similar conduct involving psychotropics (Article 66-3); transfer and similar conduct (Article 66-4)	Imprisonment for not more than 5 years and not more than 3 years respectively
Act on Regulation of Cultivation of Cannabis Plants	Unauthorized cultivation of cannabis plants (Article 24)	Imprisonment for not less than 1 year and not more than 10 years
Opium Act	Cultivation of poppies, collection of opium, and import or export of opium and similar substances (Article 51)	Imprisonment for not less than 1 year and not more than 10 years
Opium Act	Transfer, receipt or possession of opium or poppy straw (Article 52)	Imprisonment for not more than 7 years
Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act	Unlawful import and similar conduct carried out as a business (Article 5)	Imprisonment for life or for 5 years or more, together with a fine of not more than 10 million yen
Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act	Concealment of drug crime proceeds (Article 6) and receipt of such proceeds (Article 7)	Imprisonment for not more than 10 years and not more than 7 years respectively, or a fine
Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act	Import and similar conduct involving articles held out as controlled substances (Article 8)	Imprisonment for not more than 3 years or a fine of not more than 500,000 yen
Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act	Publicly inciting or soliciting the abuse of controlled substances (Article 9)	Imprisonment for not more than 3 years or a fine of not more than 500,000 yen
Penal Code, Part II, Chapter XIV	Import of opium for smoking, import of instruments for smoking opium and related offenses (Article 136 and following)	As provided in each Article

Two provisions of the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act are easily overlooked in practice: Articles 8 and 9. Article 8 captures the situation in which a person imports an article intending it to be a controlled substance when the article in fact is not one, that is, the fake drug case, and its statutory penalty includes a fine. Article 9 addresses publicly inciting or soliciting the abuse of controlled substances or the commission of drug offenses, and posts on social networking services can raise exactly this issue. Both are violations of the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act, so even a summary order imposing a fine brings the person within item 4(chi). The belief that nothing serious can follow because the substance turned out not to be a real drug does not hold.

3. The substances covered, and the street names used for them

Clients very often know a substance only by its street name and not by its legal designation. It must not happen that the word used during interrogation and the term written in the indictment are never connected in the client's mind while the proceedings move forward. The principal correspondences are set out below. The Japanese legal designation is given in parentheses.

Legal classification and designation	Common street names
Stimulants: methamphetamine and amphetamine (覚醒剤)	meth, crystal, crystal meth, ice, speed, shabu, esu, koori, bingdu
Cannabis: the cannabis plant, cannabis resin and cannabis concentrates (大麻). Treated as a narcotic from December 12, 2024	weed, marijuana, ganja, grass, hash, hashish, cannabis liquid, wax, happa
Narcotic: cocaine (麻薬・コカイン)	coke, snow, white powder
Narcotic: heroin, diacetylmorphine (麻薬・ヘロイン)	smack, junk, pe
Narcotic: MDMA and MDA (麻薬・MDMA)	ecstasy, X, molly, tama, batsu
Narcotic: LSD (麻薬・LSD)	acid, tabs, paper, blotter
Narcotic: ketamine (麻薬・ケタミン)	K, special K, keta
Narcotic: morphine, codeine and other medical narcotics (医療用麻薬)	usually referred to by the name of the prescription product
Psychotropics: flunitrazepam, etizolam, triazolam and similar substances (向精神薬)	Rohypnol, Silece, Depas, Halcion, roofies
Opium and poppy straw (あへん、けしがら)	opium, poppy

By an amending act promulgated on December 13, 2023, cannabis was, with effect from December 12, 2024, positioned as a narcotic under the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act. As a result, the use of cannabis, for which there had previously been no penal provision at all, is now punishable as a violation of Article 27 of that Act and falls within Article 66-2. Liquids, gummies and waxes containing tetrahydrocannabinol are likewise regulated under that Act as cannabis.

For a foreign national, this change is more than a technical reclassification. Conduct that was not an offense in Japan until December 2024, and that may well be lawful in the country the client comes from, has become an offense that carries a deportation ground with it. Anyone who assumes that the position is the same as it was a few years ago, or the same as at home, is working from a picture of the law that no longer exists.

4. Dangerous drugs (designated substances) are treated differently

This is the point at which a decisive difference arises in practice. Most of what is loosely called dangerous drugs is regulated as a designated substance under Article 2, paragraph 15 of the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Act, and dealing with such a substance constitutes an offense under that Act. Products containing isobutyl nitrite and the like are in the same position.

The Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Act is not among the six bodies of legislation enumerated in Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Act. Nor is it captured by Article 24, item 4-2, the special rule concerning holders of the statuses of residence listed in Appended Table I, since that item enumerates only certain chapters of the Penal Code, the Act on Punishment of Physical Violence and Others, and similar statutes.

It follows that where the case stops at a violation of the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Act concerning a designated substance, whether a deportation ground exists is judged under Article 24, item 4(ri), and no such ground arises unless the person is actually made to serve imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 1 year. Two cases that everyone would describe in ordinary language as drug cases can therefore have fundamentally different consequences for residence, depending on which statute the charge finally settles under. There is real practical value in checking, at the investigation stage, both the analytical findings on the composition of the substance and the precise designation of the offense.

That said, not falling within a deportation ground and being granted an extension of the period of stay are two separate questions. Good conduct is one of the elements considered when an extension is examined, and the fact of a conviction can affect that examination even where deportation is not in issue.

5. The deportation ground takes effect when the judgment becomes final

Item 4(chi) speaks of a person who has been convicted, and this is understood to mean a conviction that has become final. Article 5, paragraph 1, item 9-2 of the Immigration Act, which draws a clear distinction between the pronouncement of a judgment and a judgment becoming final, supports that reading.

In practical terms, deportation procedures do not begin in earnest merely because a judgment has been pronounced. If an appeal to the high court is filed, the judgment does not become final; if a further appeal to the Supreme Court is filed against the appellate judgment, it does not become final until the Supreme Court has ruled. An appeal in a criminal case is therefore both a means of contesting the sentence or the findings of fact and a means of creating time in which to prepare on the question of residence.

Three further provisions should be kept in view. First, Article 62, paragraph 3 of the Immigration Act requires the head of a penal institution to notify the immigration authorities immediately when a foreign national is to be released, for example on completion of the term of the sentence. Where the sentence is served, it is this provision that explains why a person is handed over to the immigration authorities at the prison gate. Second, Article 63, paragraph 1 permits deportation procedures to be conducted in parallel while criminal proceedings are still running, and Article 63, paragraph 2 provides that execution of a written deportation order is to take place after the criminal proceedings have ended. Third, under Article 50, paragraph 3, no application for special permission to stay can be made once a written deportation order has been issued.

Creating time is therefore meaningful in itself, but what matters is what the time is used for. If the circumstances that form the foundation of a claim to remain are not built up during the period of appeal, the only thing achieved is delay. In addition, if the period of stay expires, separate proceedings can begin on the basis of illegal overstay under Article 24, item 4(ro), so management of the expiry date of the status of residence remains essential throughout the appeal.

6. The departure order system is not available

In an ordinary overstay case there is an option of reporting voluntarily to the immigration authorities, receiving a departure order, leaving the country without being detained, and thereby limiting the period of denial of landing to 1 year. In a drug case that option is closed as a matter of statutory design.

Article 24-3 of the Immigration Act sets out the requirements for a person subject to a departure order, and item 2 requires that the person fall under none of Article 24, item 4(ha) through item 4(yo). Item 4(chi), which covers drug offenses, sits within that range, so a person convicted of a drug offense is outside the departure order system. The consequence is that the case proceeds through full deportation procedures, and the period of denial of landing is 5 years where there is no previous deportation and 10 years where there is.

7. Once a sentence has been imposed, denial of landing has no time limit

There is another provision that is regularly overlooked. Article 5, paragraph 1, item 5 of the Immigration Act lists, as a ground for denial of landing, a person who has been sentenced for a violation of any law or regulation of Japan or of any other country relating to the control of narcotics, cannabis, opium, stimulants or psychotropics.

This item contains no period. Its structure differs from that of item 9 of the same paragraph, where the periods of denial of landing are fixed at 1 year, 5 years and 10 years from the date of departure. Under item 5, so long as the fact of having been sentenced exists, the person continues to fall within a ground for denial of landing however many years pass. A suspended sentence counts, and so does a summary order imposing a fine; in each case a sentence has been imposed. Violations of foreign law are included as well.

There is not literally no room for relief. Article 5-2 provides that the Minister of Justice may, where the Minister finds it appropriate, decide not to deny landing on the basis of item 5 alone, and Article 12, paragraph 1, item 3 establishes the system of special permission for landing. Both, however, rest on the discretionary judgment of the Minister of Justice and are in no sense automatic.

This is what settles the weight of any decision to leave Japan. In a drug case, the idea of going home and coming back later to start again does not work in the way people expect. Precisely for that reason, for a person whose life is based in Japan, whether residence can be maintained through special permission to stay is in practice a single opportunity that does not come round again.

8. The only remaining route is special permission to stay

For a foreign national who falls within a ground for deportation, the only legal route to continued residence in Japan is special permission to stay under Article 50 of the Immigration Act. Paragraph 1 of that Article provides that residence may be specially permitted, on application or on the authorities' own initiative, where the person holds permanent residence permission, where the person once had a domicile in Japan as a Japanese national, where the person is under the control of another through human trafficking or similar conduct, where the person has been recognized as a refugee or as a person eligible for complementary protection, and where the Minister of Justice otherwise finds special circumstances warranting permission to stay. Most drug cases proceed under the last of these.

The timing of the procedure requires care. Under Article 50, paragraph 2, an application for special permission to stay may be made by a foreign national detained under a written detention order and by a foreign national subject to a supervision measure decision. Before that stage is reached, what can be done is properly described as activity seeking the exercise of the Minister's own authority rather than a formal application. Under paragraph 3, no application is possible once a written deportation order has been issued. Under paragraph 4, permission cannot be granted until the person has accepted the findings or the determination, or a decision has been made that the objection filed is without grounds. Under paragraph 10, where permission is refused, a written statement of reasons is delivered.

One point about how to read the statute matters a great deal for clients in drug cases. The proviso to Article 50, paragraph 1 imposes an additional requirement in respect of a person sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 1 year, and a person falling under Article 24, item 3-2, item 3-3, item 4(ha), or item 4(o) through item 4(yo): for such a person, permission may be granted only where there are special circumstances such that refusing residence would be found to lack humanitarian consideration.

Item 4(chi), the drug provision, is not included in that enumeration. In other words, where the sentence is suspended, the additional requirement does not operate, and the case is examined under the ordinary framework of the main text of Article 50, paragraph 1. By contrast, where the person is made to serve imprisonment exceeding 1 year, the severity of the sentence brings the proviso into play and the standard of judgment rises by one level. Whether the sentence is suspended or served makes no difference at the entrance, that is, in deciding whether a deportation ground exists, but it makes a clear difference at the exit, in the framework under which special permission to stay is assessed.

9. How special permission to stay is assessed, and why settlement in Japan is central

Article 50, paragraph 5 of the Immigration Act provides that, in reaching a decision, consideration is to be given to the reasons for wishing to remain, family relationships, conduct, the circumstances in which the person came to enter Japan, the length of residence in Japan and the person's legal status during that period, the facts that gave rise to the ground for deportation, and the need for humanitarian consideration, as well as to conditions at home and abroad, the effect on persons residing illegally, and other circumstances. The Immigration Services Agency guidelines on special permission to stay were revised in March 2024.

Translated into the sense that practice gives them, these factors place settlement in Japan at the center of the decision. The questions are how deeply the person's life has taken root in Japanese society and how unreasonable it would be to sever that foundation. The guidelines expressly treat as a positive factor the need to protect the interests of a child in living together with family, and list as a positive factor the circumstance that the person has received education for a substantial period at an elementary or secondary educational institution in Japan.

Speaking in general terms, a person who has completed elementary school, junior high school and high school in Japan and who has no criminal record can be regarded as a typical case in which special permission to stay is granted. The unreasonableness of removing a person whose actual life, whose language and whose human relationships exist only in Japan is plain.

A client in a drug case stands at that typical position with the negative factor of conduct added to it. The guidelines list violations of penal statutes as a negative factor, and a drug offense is not a light one. The outcome therefore turns on how concretely the settlement side of the balance can be proved. The work consists of building up certificates of enrollment and graduation, statements from family members, records of employment and tax payment, and materials showing involvement in the local community, as individual facts rather than as abstract assertions.

It is also worth having a sense of the numbers. According to figures published by the Immigration Services Agency, 18,442 foreign nationals were subject to deportation and related procedures during 2025, of whom 17,031 were cases of illegal overstay and 503 were cases of violation of penal statutes. In the same year, 1,026 applications for special permission to stay were granted. Because the numerator and the denominator are not of the same nature, these figures cannot be read as a simple rate of permission, but it should be understood that permission is an exceptional decision.

Special permanent residents are in a different position. Under Article 22, paragraph 1 of the Special Act on the Immigration Control of, inter alia, Those who have Lost Japanese Nationality on the Basis of the Treaty of Peace with Japan (the Immigration Special Act), a special permanent resident may be deported only in cases involving crimes of insurrection or foreign aggression, crimes relating to foreign relations, criminal acts against a foreign head of state and similar persons, or where the person has been sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 7 years and the Minister of Justice has found that a significant interest of Japan has been harmed. A special permanent resident is not deported by reason of having received a suspended sentence in a drug case.

10. The outcome is decided during the criminal defense

The practical conclusion that follows from all of the above is straightforward. The contest over residence begins not after immigration procedures have started, but during the criminal proceedings.

First, where there is a decision not to prosecute, no conviction exists and item 4(chi) is not engaged. In drug cases a confession tends to be decisive in fact, but points capable of being contested exist in every case: awareness in relation to possession or use, the relationship with alleged accomplices, and the lawfulness of the seizure procedure, among others. In cases involving foreign nationals, exchanges conducted through an interpreter during interrogation are reduced to a written statement, which creates a real risk that a state of awareness the suspect never described becomes fixed in the record. That is the reason it matters to secure an interpreter who works for the client, separate from the interpreter arranged by the investigating authorities.

Second, close attention must be paid to the statute under which the charge finally settles. Whether the case stops at a violation of the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Act concerning a designated substance, or whether analysis of the composition leads to the substance being treated as a narcotic, determines whether a deportation ground exists at all.

Third, at the sentencing stage it is useful, alongside the effort to obtain a suspended sentence, to place on the record the facts that will matter later for special permission to stay. Family relationships, educational history, employment, and concrete measures to prevent reoffending are mitigating circumstances in the criminal case and, at the same time, are precisely the positive factors used in assessing special permission to stay. The criminal defense and the immigration procedure should not be treated as separate exercises; they need to be designed as a single sequence.

Fourth, there is the management of the period of stay. If the period of stay expires while the criminal proceedings are still running, an illegal overstay problem arises independently of the drug case, and the available options narrow further.

11. Frequently asked questions

Q1. I received a suspended sentence. Is there any possibility of remaining in Japan?

There is a possibility. A suspended sentence still falls within the deportation ground under Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Act, but the additional requirement in the proviso to Article 50, paragraph 1 does not operate, so special permission to stay is examined under the ordinary framework. What matters most is how concretely the foundation of your life in Japan can be proved.

Q2. If I appeal, can I stop the deportation?

Rather than stopping it, an appeal postpones the point at which the judgment becomes final. The conviction referred to in Article 24, item 4(chi) is understood to mean a final judgment, so procedures under that item do not move in earnest until the judgment becomes final. However, if your period of stay expires, separate proceedings can begin on the basis of illegal overstay, so the expiry date still has to be managed.

Q3. Does a case that ended with only a fine also become a ground for deportation?

Yes. Article 24, item 4(chi) does not make the type of penalty a requirement. A person who receives a summary order in respect of an offense for which a fine is provided, such as Article 8 or Article 9 of the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act, is a person who has been convicted.

Q4. Is the position the same for dangerous drugs?

It is different. A violation of the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Act concerning a designated substance is not included in the list in Article 24, item 4(chi), so it becomes a deportation ground under Article 24, item 4(ri) only where the person is made to serve imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 1 year. It may nonetheless affect an application to extend the period of stay.

Q5. Can I return home once and then come back to Japan later?

In drug cases this is difficult. Article 5, paragraph 1, item 5 of the Immigration Act makes a person who has been sentenced for a violation of drug control legislation a ground for denial of landing with no period attached. Room for an exception exists under Article 5-2 and Article 12, but both rest on the discretionary judgment of the Minister of Justice.

Q6. I am a permanent resident. Can I still be deported for a drug case?

Permanent residents are also covered by Article 24, item 4(chi). Holding permanent residence permission is a factor to be considered for special permission to stay under Article 50, paragraph 1, item 1, but it does not prevent the deportation ground from arising. Special permanent residents are in a different position: under Article 22, paragraph 1 of the Immigration Special Act the grounds for their deportation are limited, and drug cases are not among them.

12. Closing

A drug case affects residence in a way that cannot be measured by the severity of the sentence. If a client takes comfort in a suspended sentence and simply waits for the immigration procedure to arrive, the weight of the situation may become apparent only when a written detention order is issued. Conversely, if the case is designed from the earliest steps of the criminal matter with residence in view, it is possible to connect a decision not to prosecute, the choice of the offense charged, the recording of mitigating circumstances, and an application for special permission to stay into a single line.

I became a lawyer in order to protect the people who matter.

At this office, Daisuke Matsumura handles every stage personally, from the first visit to the client in custody through to the conclusion of the trial, and the work is not delegated to clerical staff or to junior attorneys. As to interpretation, a dedicated Chinese interpreter experienced in cases involving foreign nationals is permanently on staff; for English and other languages, an interpreter is arranged to suit the individual case. In either situation the interpreter acts for the client, separately from the interpreter arranged by the investigating authorities, and is available throughout the criminal proceedings. If you are facing a criminal case as a foreign national in Japan, or the question of residence status that follows it, you are welcome to consult this office, which has concentrated on cases involving foreign nationals.

This article is a general explanation and does not guarantee any outcome. For an individual case, please consult a lawyer directly. The information in this article is current as of September 2026.

About the author

Daisuke Matsumura (松村大介), Attorney at Law (Bengoshi)
Dai-Ichi Tokyo Bar Association, Registration No. 59077 (admitted 2019)
Funado International Law Office, Toshima-ku, Tokyo
Principal areas of practice: criminal defense for foreign nationals, with a focus on clients of Chinese nationality, and immigration-related administrative proceedings.

Funado International Law Office
Website: https://matsumura-lawoffice.jp/
WeChat ID: matsumura1119

Other languages / 其他语言：日本語 ／ 简体中文 ／ 繁體中文 ／ Tiếng Việt ／ 한국어 ／ नेपाली ／ Português ／ Tagalog ／ Español