Japan's Immigration Control System: Explanation of Revocation of Residence Status, Deportation, and Proof of Legality

In the modern era where global business expansion is accelerating, the mobility of international talent has become an essential element for corporate growth. Japan is no exception, with many companies actively welcoming professionals with specialized knowledge and skills from abroad. To facilitate such international talent movement smoothly and maintain national security and order, the Japanese legal system has established a sophisticated framework. At the core of this framework is the “Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act of Japan” (hereinafter referred to as the “Immigration Act”). As stated in Article 1 of the Japanese Immigration Act, the law aims to “ensure the fair management of the entry and exit of all persons who enter or leave Japan, and the residence of all foreigners residing in the country.” To embody this principle of “fair management,” the Immigration Act sets forth several important systems. This article will focus on three systems that are closely related to corporate activities, namely, the “Revocation of Status of Residence” system to ensure the continuous eligibility of residency status, the “Deportation” system as a final measure against legal violations, and the “Certificate of Eligibility” system to proactively ensure compliance with residency laws. These systems are not merely regulatory; they are extremely important legal foundations that companies conducting business in Japan must understand to manage risks, comply with laws, and appropriately support their foreign talent.

Maintaining Compliance with the Residency Status Revocation System in Japan

The Residency Status Revocation System, as stipulated in Article 22-4 of the Japanese Immigration Control Act, is a critical mechanism that can shake the legal foundation for foreigners to continue residing in Japan. The purpose of this system is not merely to punish fraudulent activities at the time of obtaining residency status. Instead, it aims to dynamically maintain the propriety of residency management by ensuring that foreigners granted residency status continuously engage in the activities permitted throughout their stay. Statistical data indicates that the residency statuses with a high number of revocations include “Technical Intern Training” and “Student.” These statuses are particularly scrutinized for continuous compliance by the authorities, as they are prone to cases where individuals cease their original activities (training or academic studies) and engage in unauthorized work. This suggests that residency status is not a one-time assessment but a conditional permission requiring ongoing adherence.

The grounds for revocation are specifically enumerated in Article 22-4, Paragraph 1 of the Japanese Immigration Control Act. These can be broadly classified into three categories. First is the acquisition of residency status through falsehood or other fraudulent means (items 1, 2, and 3 of the same paragraph). For example, submitting a false academic certificate to obtain a “Engineer/Specialist in Humanities/International Services” residency status or hiding a past deportation history to receive landing permission falls under this category. In particular, if permission is obtained by falsifying grounds for denial of landing, it may immediately become subject to deportation proceedings after the revocation of residency status.

Second is the non-performance of permitted activities (items 5, 6, and 7 of the same paragraph). This applies to cases such as individuals with work-related residency statuses who, after leaving their job, continue to reside without engaging in new job-hunting activities for more than three months without a valid reason, or individuals with a “Spouse or Child of Japanese National” residency status who continue to reside without engaging in spouse-related activities for more than six months after divorce.

Third is the non-fulfillment of the obligation to report a change of address (items 9 and 10 of the same paragraph). This includes cases where medium to long-term residents move but fail to report their new address within 90 days or submit a false address.

However, even if formally applicable to these grounds, residency status is not immediately revoked. The law provides exceptions for cases with “justifiable reasons.” For instance, earnest job-hunting after being laid off due to company circumstances or temporarily suspending activities for medical treatment may be recognized as “justifiable reasons.” The existence of a “justifiable reason” becomes the most crucial defense to avoid revocation of residency status. Therefore, when a company dismisses an employee, it is indirectly protective of the individual’s legal status to ensure that subsequent job-hunting proceeds smoothly and to assist in retaining relevant evidence.

In the event of revocation, the Minister of Justice must provide the foreign national in question with a notice in advance and an opportunity for “hearing opinions.” Through this procedure, the individual can state their case and submit favorable evidence. This right is extremely important from the perspective of ensuring due process.

The impact of residency status revocation is profound. Not only is the legal basis for residence lost, but the individual’s resident registration is also deleted, and access to public services such as national health insurance is cut off. Depending on the grounds for revocation, a preparation period of up to 30 days for departure may be granted, but in cases of revocation due to malicious fraud, immediate transition to deportation proceedings is also possible.

In understanding the operation of this system, the Japanese Supreme Court’s decision on October 17, 2002 (Heisei 14), provides important insights. In this case, the residency of a foreign spouse, whose marital relationship had substantively collapsed despite the legal marriage continuing, was in question. The court indicated that in determining residency status, not just the legal formality but the “substance” of the activity, namely the essence of marriage as a cohabiting life as a couple, should be emphasized. This demonstrates that immigration authorities should scrutinize not only the documentary requirements but also the actual situation of residency, suggesting the necessity for companies to verify that the activities underpinning their employees’ residency statuses are substantiated.

Deportation System: The Ultimate Measure Against Violations in Japan

The deportation system is an administrative measure used to forcibly remove foreigners who have violated Japan’s Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, representing the most severe action within Japanese immigration and residency management. The legal basis for this system is primarily found in Article 24 of the Japanese Immigration Control Act, which comprehensively enumerates the grounds for deportation (deportation reasons).

There are various reasons for deportation, but the main ones include “illegal entry” without a valid passport and “overstaying” beyond the permitted period of residence. Engaging in activities beyond the scope of the granted residency status, known as “unauthorized work,” may also constitute grounds for deportation. Additionally, serious criminal offenses within Japan, such as drug crimes or being sentenced to imprisonment for more than one year, can lead to deportation.

The deportation process is carefully carried out in multiple stages. Initially, immigration inspectors begin an investigation (violation investigation) into foreigners suspected of violations. If there is sufficient reason to suspect that the individual falls under the grounds for deportation, they are typically detained based on a detention order. Subsequently, an immigration examiner conducts a violation review, and if the individual is deemed subject to deportation, they can request an oral hearing by a special inquiry officer within three days. If the determination is not overturned at the oral hearing, the individual may further object to the Minister of Justice. Unless the “Special Permission to Stay” mentioned later is granted at this final stage of adjudication by the Minister of Justice, a deportation order is issued, and repatriation is executed.

However, not all overstayers are subject to this stringent deportation procedure. As a more lenient measure, Japanese immigration law provides the “departure order system.” This system applies to individuals who voluntarily appear at the immigration office while in an overstaying status, have no history of deportation, have not been punished for crimes such as theft, and meet certain other criteria. The main differences between the departure order system and the deportation system lie in the severity of their procedures and outcomes.

In the final stage of the deportation procedure, the Minister of Justice exercises a critically important discretionary power: the “Special Permission to Stay.” This is a benevolent measure granted when the Minister of Justice, considering individual circumstances, decides that residency should be exceptionally allowed despite the presence of deportation reasons. Although the Minister’s discretion is broadly interpreted, guidelines known as the “Guidelines for Special Permission to Stay” have been published to serve as criteria for these decisions.

According to these guidelines, circumstances such as having a child with a Japanese national or permanent resident, a substantively ongoing marriage, a long period of residence in Japan with strong ties to the community, or the need for special humanitarian consideration are considered “positive factors” that may lead to the granting of residency. On the other hand, having a serious criminal record, a history of deportation, or involvement in organized smuggling, which undermines the foundation of the immigration system, are considered “negative factors” that may lead to the denial of residency.

As an example of judicial decisions related to deportation, the Tokyo District Court’s judgment on January 30, 2015, is noteworthy. In this case, a foreign national who had already been repatriated sued for the revocation of the deportation order. The court recognized the benefit of the lawsuit, as the cancellation of the order could potentially restore legal benefits, such as reducing the future re-entry ban period. This judgment indicates that, even against the powerful administrative measure of deportation, the judiciary provides a limited avenue for post-facto relief.

Proactive Measures: Systems to Prove Legality of Residence and Employment in Japan

Unlike the systems of revocation of residence status and deportation orders, which are corrective measures for compliance violations after the fact, Japanese immigration law also provides proactive systems to ensure legal stability and prevent risks for companies and foreign nationals. These are not merely administrative procedures but are extremely effective tools from the perspective of corporate governance and risk management in the employment of foreign talent. Particularly important are the “Certificate of Eligibility for Resident Status” and the “Certificate of Authorization to Engage in Activity other than that Permitted under the Status of Residence Previously Granted.”

The “Certificate of Eligibility for Resident Status” is based on Article 7-2 of the Japanese Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act. It is a document that the Minister of Justice pre-screens and certifies that the activities a foreign national intends to engage in Japan conform to the requirements of a specific residence status when inviting them to Japan for medium to long-term stays. Typically, a host institution in Japan (such as a company) applies on behalf of the foreign national. Once this certificate is issued, the foreign national can submit it when applying for a visa at a Japanese embassy or consulate in their home country, which facilitates a swift and smooth visa issuance process. The greatest benefit for companies is the significant reduction in the risk that the talent they have decided to hire may not be able to enter Japan. Obtaining pre-approval of eligibility increases the predictability of the entire recruitment process.

On the other hand, the “Certificate of Authorization to Engage in Activity other than that Permitted under the Status of Residence Previously Granted” is based on Article 19-2 of the Japanese Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act and is used when a foreign national already residing in Japan changes jobs. This certificate officially certifies that the job duties at the new workplace fall within the scope of activities permitted under the foreign national’s current residence status, as confirmed by the Immigration Services Agency of Japan. When companies hire foreign nationals mid-career, requesting this certificate can avoid the risk of inadvertently promoting illegal employment. It also serves as an important insurance for the foreign nationals themselves to prevent the unforeseen situation of being denied renewal of their residence period due to a job change.

While these two certificates have similar names, their purposes, target users, and timing of application are entirely different. Understanding the differences between the two is essential for proper personnel and labor management.

Thus, strategically utilizing these two certificate systems is key to strengthening the compliance framework for employing foreign nationals and effectively managing operational risks. The Certificate of Eligibility for Resident Status eliminates uncertainty at the recruitment stage, while the Certificate of Authorization to Engage in Activity other than that Permitted under the Status of Residence Previously Granted ensures the legal stability of the employment status. They function as a sort of ‘seal of approval,’ creating an environment where foreign employees can confidently perform while protecting the company from legal liabilities.

Summary

The Japanese Immigration Control and Residency Management system is a multifaceted and logical framework that, while having strict aspects such as the revocation of residency status and deportation enforcement, also includes systems like the Certificate of Eligibility and the Certificate of Authorized Employment to proactively ensure legal stability. From a business management perspective, the revocation and deportation systems encompass significant compliance risks, but by properly utilizing preventive measures such as the certificate systems, it is possible to manage these risks and create a safe environment where foreign talent can thrive. To accurately understand these complex legal regulations and respond appropriately to individual cases, advanced specialized knowledge and extensive practical experience are essential.

Monolith Law Office has a proven track record of providing legal services related to Japanese immigration law to numerous domestic clients over the years. Our firm employs a number of professionals with international backgrounds, including English speakers with foreign attorney qualifications, enabling us to provide meticulous support through smooth communication that transcends language and cultural barriers. From consultations regarding residency status for foreign employees to the establishment of compliance systems and handling unexpected troubles, we offer legal support for your business at every stage.