Obtaining a status of residence is a pivotal step for foreign nationals wishing to reside in Japan. However, this status is not absolute and can be revoked under certain circumstances, even before the expiration of the granted period of stay. Article 22-4 of Japan's Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (ICRRA) outlines the grounds and procedures for such revocation. Understanding these provisions is crucial for foreign residents to maintain their legal status and for entities that employ or sponsor them to ensure compliance. This article details the conditions under which a foreign national's status of residence can be revoked, the procedural safeguards involved, and the consequences of such a decision.

Background and Purpose of the Revocation System

The system for revoking statuses of residence was formally introduced into the ICRRA by amendments in 2004 (Act No. 73 of 2004). The primary impetus for its creation was to address issues related to "disguised stays" (偽装滞在 - gisō taizai), where foreign nationals obtain a status of residence through fraudulent means and subsequently engage in unauthorized activities, often illegal work[cite: 1, 305].

Prior to this system, while it was possible to annul a permission that was granted based on flawed administrative action under general principles of administrative law, this approach had drawbacks. Such annulment typically had a retroactive effect, creating legal instability for the foreign national and potentially affecting third parties. Furthermore, there were no specific procedural provisions in the ICRRA for these "administrative annulments," including for opinion hearings.

The revocation system under Article 22-4 was designed to:

1. Address initial fraud: Provide a clear legal basis for revoking a status obtained through deceit or false declarations.
2. Address post-permission misconduct: Deal with situations where a foreign national, after legitimately obtaining a status, fails to engage in the primary activities associated with that status or violates other key obligations.
3. Enhance post-entry checks: Strengthen the ability of immigration authorities to manage and verify the activities of foreign residents.
4. Provide procedural fairness: Establish a formal process, including an opinion hearing, before a status is revoked.
5. Offer flexible outcomes: Unlike deportation which is a more rigid process, revocation can, in some cases, lead to a designated period for voluntary departure rather than immediate deportation, depending on the nature of the grounds for revocation.

The Minister of Justice has the authority to revoke a status of residence if any of the facts listed in Article 22-4, Paragraph 1 become known. This applies to foreign nationals residing in Japan with a status of residence listed in Appended Table I or II of the ICRRA, with the explicit exclusion of those who have been recognized as refugees under Article 61-2, Paragraph 1 (whose status revocation related to refugee recognition is handled under Article 61-2-8).

Grounds for Revocation of Status of Residence (Article 22-4, Paragraph 1)

The grounds for revocation are categorized primarily into those related to fraudulent acquisition of the status and those related to non-compliance with residency obligations after obtaining the status.

A. Fraudulent or Improper Acquisition of Landing Permission or Status (Items 1-5)

These items address situations where the initial permission to land or subsequent permissions related to status of residence were obtained through deceit or other illicit means.

1. Deception regarding grounds for denial of landing (Item 1): Revocation is possible if it is found that the foreign national, through false statements, submission of forged documents, or other fraudulent means, concealed facts that would have made them inadmissible under Article 5, Paragraph 1 (Grounds for Denial of Landing) and thereby obtained landing permission (including an electronic record under Article 9, Paragraph 4) or other permission.
2. Deception regarding eligibility for status of residence (Item 2): If a foreign national, through fraudulent means, misrepresented their intended activities or qualifications to appear eligible for a particular status of residence, and as a result, received landing permission (that involved a determination of status of residence) or other permission for residence (e.g., change of status, extension of period of stay – the most recent such permission is considered). This directly targets falsification of the core basis for the granted status.
3. Other fraudulent means of obtaining permission (Item 3): This is a catch-all for cases where landing permission or other residence-related permission was obtained through fraudulent means not covered by Items 1 or 2 (e.g., misrepresenting compliance with specific landing permission standards)[cite: 1, 316].
4. Submission of false documents (Item 4): If landing permission or other residence-related permission was obtained by submitting or presenting documents containing false statements (including a Certificate of Eligibility or visa obtained through such documents), even if the applicant was not necessarily aware of the falsity themselves. This targets situations where, for example, an accepting organization provides false information.
5. Fraudulent acquisition of Special Permission to Stay (Item 5): If a foreign national obtained Special Permission to Stay under Article 50, Paragraph 1 (in deportation proceedings) or Article 61-2-2, Paragraph 2 (in refugee recognition procedures) through fraudulent means, and has not subsequently received any further landing permission or permission related to their status of residence.

For Items 1, 2, 3, and 5, the term "by deceit or other fraudulent means" generally implies that the foreign national was aware of the illicit nature of their actions. For Item 4, however, the foreign national's knowledge of the falsity of the submitted documents is not necessarily a prerequisite for revocation, though the materiality of the false statement would be considered.

B. Failure to Engage in Permitted Activities or Fulfill Obligations (Items 6-10)

These items address situations arising after the foreign national has been granted a status of residence.

1. Failure to engage in the primary activity (Item 6): If a foreign national residing under a status of residence listed in Appended Table I (typically work or study-related statuses) has failed to continuously engage in the activities specified for that status for three months or more without a justifiable reason. For those with "Highly Skilled Professional (ii)" status, this period is extended to six months or more. This targets individuals who are no longer fulfilling the primary purpose of their stay.
   • "Justifiable reason" (正当な理由 - seitō na riyū): This is assessed on a case-by-case basis. It might include illness, temporary business closure beyond the foreign national's control while actively seeking re-engagement, or other unavoidable circumstances. Simply being unable to find work immediately after losing a job, if actively searching, might be considered justifiable for a certain period.
2. Failure to engage in spousal activities (Item 7): If a foreign national residing under a spousal status ("Spouse or Child of Japanese National" or "Spouse or Child of Permanent Resident," limited to those whose status is based on being a spouse) has failed to continuously engage in activities as a spouse for six months or more without a justifiable reason (e.g., due to separation without intent to reconcile, or death of the Japanese/permanent resident spouse and no other basis for stay). "Justifiable reasons" could include situations like domestic violence forcing separation or ongoing divorce proceedings.
   • Consideration under Article 22-5: If revocation is contemplated under this ground, the Minister of Justice must give consideration to providing the foreign national an opportunity to apply for a change of status of residence or for permanent residence[cite: 1, 334].
3. Failure to notify place of residence after new entry (Item 8): If a person who newly became a medium to long-term resident upon receiving landing permission (or other permission establishing such status) fails to notify the Minister of Justice of their place of residence within 90 days from the date of said permission, without a justifiable reason. (Note: The initial notification to the local municipal office is due within 14 days under Article 19-7; this 90-day period for revocation purposes provides a longer window before this more severe consequence is triggered).
4. Failure to notify new place of residence after moving (Item 9): If a medium to long-term resident, having moved from their previously notified address, fails to notify the Minister of Justice of their new place of residence within 90 days from the date of moving, without a justifiable reason. (Again, the notification to the municipality under Article 19-9 is due within 14 days).
5. Notification of a false place of residence (Item 10): If a medium to long-term resident has notified a false place of residence to the Minister of Justice[cite: 1, 326].

Items 8, 9, and 10 were added in 2009 to strengthen the residency management system by ensuring accurate address information.

Procedural Safeguards: Opinion Hearing (Article 22-4, Paragraphs 2-5)

Before revoking a status of residence, the Minister of Justice must, as a rule, provide the foreign national with an opportunity to be heard.

• Designated Official: The opinion hearing is conducted by an Immigration Inspector designated by the Minister (or a Refugee Inquiry Officer if the revocation concerns a status granted in relation to refugee recognition procedures which are then subsequently found to be based on fraud related to Article 61-2-2, Paragraph 1 criteria)[cite: 1, 327].
• Advance Notice: The foreign national must be notified in advance of the date and place of the hearing, and the facts constituting the grounds for revocation. This notice is typically served as a formal document (Opinion Hearing Notice - 意見聴取通知書 iken chōshu tsūchisho), though oral notification by an immigration officer is permitted in urgent cases.
• Right to Be Heard: The foreign national or their agent may attend the hearing, state their opinions, and submit evidence[cite: 1, 329]. They also have the right to inspect relevant documents prior to the hearing.
• Exception: If the foreign national fails to attend the hearing without a justifiable reason, the Minister of Justice may proceed with the revocation without an opinion hearing[cite: 1, 330].

Method and Effect of Revocation; Period for Departure (Article 22-4, Paragraphs 6-9)

• Notification of Revocation: The revocation of a status of residence is effected by the Minister of Justice serving a written Notice of Revocation of Status of Residence (在留資格取消通知書 - zairyū shikaku torikeshi tsūchisho) on the foreign national[cite: 1, 330].
• Designation of Period for Departure: When a status of residence is revoked on grounds other than Items 1 (fraud regarding denial of landing grounds) or 2 (fraud regarding status eligibility), the Minister of Justice must designate a period, not exceeding 30 days, within which the foreign national must depart from Japan. This period is intended for the foreign national to prepare for departure.
  • No departure period for Items 1 or 2: If revocation is based on the more serious grounds of fraudulent denial of landing eligibility (Item 1) or fraudulent status eligibility (Item 2), no period for departure is designated. The foreign national immediately becomes deportable.
• Conditions during Departure Period: When a period for departure is designated, the Minister of Justice may impose conditions such as restrictions on residence and scope of activities[cite: 1, 331].
• Content of Revocation Notice: The Notice of Revocation must also state the designated period for departure and any conditions imposed[cite: 1, 332].

The revocation of a status of residence does not have a retroactive effect. It invalidates the status from the moment the revocation takes effect.

Relationship with Deportation Procedures and Penalties

• Deportation Grounds:
  • A foreign national whose status of residence has been revoked based on Items 1 or 2 of Article 22-4, Paragraph 1, becomes subject to deportation (Article 24, Item 2-2).
  • A foreign national who was designated a period for departure after revocation (for reasons other than Items 1 or 2) but remains in Japan beyond that designated period also becomes subject to deportation (Article 24, Item 2-3).
• Penal Provisions:
  • Remaining in Japan after one's status has been revoked under Items 1 or 2 is punishable by imprisonment for up to 3 years, a fine of up to 3 million yen, or both (Article 70, Paragraph 1, Item 3).
  • Remaining in Japan beyond a designated period for departure after revocation is also punishable by the same penalties (Article 70, Paragraph 1, Item 3-2).

Conclusion

The revocation of a status of residence under Article 22-4 of the ICRRA is a significant administrative measure that can be taken when a foreign national has obtained their status through fraudulent means or has subsequently failed to comply with fundamental obligations related to their stay, such as engaging in their permitted activities or notifying essential changes. While the grounds for revocation are specific, the process includes an opinion hearing to ensure procedural fairness. The consequences of revocation are severe, potentially leading to deportation and criminal penalties. This underscores the importance for all foreign residents in Japan to ensure the accuracy of information provided to immigration authorities and to diligently adhere to the conditions and obligations associated with their status of residence.