Japan's Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (ICRRA) establishes a comprehensive framework for managing the entry, stay, and departure of foreign nationals. A critical component of this framework is the "Violation Investigation" (違反調査 - ihan chōsa) procedure, which empowers Immigration Control Officers to investigate suspected breaches of the Act. Understanding the purpose of these investigations and the scope of powers vested in Immigration Control Officers is essential for anyone interacting with the Japanese immigration system, particularly if suspected of a violation. This article delves into Articles 27 through 31 of the ICRRA, outlining the nature of violation investigations and the specific authorities of these officers.

The Purpose and Initiation of Violation Investigations (Article 27)

Article 27 of the ICRRA provides the foundational authority for these investigations:
"An Immigration Control Officer (入国警備官 - nyūkoku keibikan) may conduct an investigation into any foreign national whom he/she has reasonable grounds to suspect of falling under any of the grounds for deportation set forth in Article 24 (hereinafter referred to as "suspect")."

The primary purpose of a violation investigation is to ascertain whether a foreign national (the "suspect") has indeed committed an act that constitutes a ground for deportation under Article 24. These grounds are extensive, ranging from illegal entry and overstaying to engaging in unauthorized activities, criminal convictions, and posing threats to public order or national security.

An investigation is initiated when an Immigration Control Officer has "reasonable grounds to suspect" a violation. This implies that there must be some objective basis for the suspicion, not mere conjecture. The investigation is an administrative process, distinct from a criminal investigation, although the findings can lead to administrative measures such as deportation, and in some cases, may also trigger separate criminal proceedings under the ICRRA's penal provisions.

The principle of voluntary cooperation generally underlies these investigations, but Immigration Control Officers are vested with specific coercive powers to ensure effective fact-finding when necessary.

Key Powers of Immigration Control Officers During Violation Investigations

The ICRRA grants Immigration Control Officers several key powers to conduct violation investigations:

1. Request for Appearance and Interrogation of the Suspect (Article 28)

If deemed necessary for the investigation, an Immigration Control Officer may:

• Request the suspect to appear at a designated place (e.g., an immigration office).
• Interrogate the suspect.

During the interrogation, the officer can question the suspect about matters relevant to the suspected violation. The ICRRA details procedural aspects for recording the suspect's statement:

• A written record (供述調書 - kyōjutsu chōsho) of the statement must be prepared.
• This record must be read to the suspect (or the suspect may read it themselves) for confirmation of accuracy.
• The suspect must be given an opportunity to add, delete, or alter the content.
• If the suspect confirms the record is accurate, they are asked to sign and seal it (or affix their thumbprint if they cannot sign/seal).
• If the suspect refuses to sign or seal, that fact is noted on the record.

It is noteworthy that, unlike in criminal proceedings in Japan (which are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure), there is no explicit statutory requirement in Article 28 for Immigration Control Officers to inform the suspect of a right to remain silent or a right to counsel prior to or during the interrogation. This difference stems from the administrative nature of the violation investigation. However, the suspect retains the right to challenge the findings and present their case during subsequent stages of the deportation process (e.g., an oral hearing before a Special Inquiry Officer if detained, or in an objection to the Minister of Justice).

2. Request for Appearance and Interrogation of Witnesses (Article 29)

To gather necessary information, Immigration Control Officers can also request the appearance of and interrogate individuals other than the suspect, known as "witnesses" or "persons concerned" (参考人 - sankōnin).

• Similar procedures for recording statements as those for suspects (reading back, opportunity for correction, signature/seal) apply to witnesses.
• Witnesses who appear upon request are entitled to reimbursement for travel expenses, daily allowances, and accommodation fees, as prescribed by a Cabinet Order. This provision aims to ensure that individuals are not unduly burdened by cooperating with investigations.

3. Request for Submission of Documents or Articles (Article 30)

Immigration Control Officers have the authority to seek information and evidence from various sources:

• Inquiries to Public Offices or Public/Private Organizations: They can make inquiries to public offices or public or private organizations and request reports on necessary matters. This allows them to obtain official records or information relevant to the investigation (e.g., employment records, school enrollment details).
• Request for Submission of Articles: They can request the owner, possessor, or custodian of any articles (物件 - bukken, which can include documents or physical objects) that may constitute evidence of the violation, or are believed to be subject to confiscation, to submit those articles.

These requests are generally based on voluntary compliance, but failure to cooperate without justifiable reason could potentially lead to other administrative or legal consequences depending on the circumstances.

4. Inspection, Search, and Seizure (Article 31)

This is one of the most significant coercive powers granted to Immigration Control Officers. If deemed necessary for the investigation, an officer may:

• Enter the suspect's residence or other necessary places.
• Inspect relevant items (e.g., documents, belongings).
• Search for evidence.
• Seize articles that may constitute evidence of the violation or are believed to be subject to confiscation.

Warrant Requirement:
Crucially, Article 31, Paragraph 1 establishes that such entry, inspection, search, or seizure can generally only be conducted with a permit (許可状 - kyokajō) issued by a judge of a district court or summary court having jurisdiction over the location of the place to be entered, inspected, searched, or the articles to be seized. This is known as an "Inspection Permit" (臨検等許可状 - rinken-tō kyokajō).

• Application for Warrant: The permit is requested by an Immigration Control Officer (limited to those with the rank of Immigration Control Superintendent (警視 - keishi) or Immigration Control Senior Officer (警部 - keibu)).
• Content and Presentation of Warrant: The permit must state the name of the suspect, the alleged offense, the places to be entered, inspected, or searched, the articles to be seized, the valid period of the permit, the date of issuance, and bear the name and seal of the issuing judge. The officer must present this permit to the person in charge of the premises or to a witness before commencing the action.

Exceptions to Warrant Requirement:
While the warrant principle is paramount, there are limited exceptions, most notably Article 34, which allows for search and seizure without a warrant at the scene of an arrest of a suspect (if the arrest itself is lawful under the ICRRA, e.g., based on an arrest warrant or flagrant delecto).

The inclusion of a judicial warrant requirement for these intrusive measures is a significant safeguard aimed at preventing arbitrary exercise of power and protecting the rights of individuals, even those suspected of immigration violations.

Limitations and Important Considerations

• Distinction from Criminal Investigation (Article 37): Article 37 explicitly states that the authority granted to Immigration Control Officers for violation investigations "shall not be construed as being for criminal investigation." This emphasizes the administrative nature of the process, aimed at determining deportability rather than imposing criminal punishment. While the facts uncovered might lead to a separate criminal prosecution, the violation investigation itself operates under a different legal framework and purpose.
• Due Process: Although administrative, violation investigations can significantly impact an individual's liberty and right to reside in Japan. Therefore, adherence to principles of due process, fairness, and proportionality is essential. The suspect is provided opportunities to present their case in subsequent deportation proceedings.
• Role of Legal Counsel: While the ICRRA does not explicitly grant a right to counsel during the initial interrogation by an Immigration Control Officer in the same way as in criminal proceedings, foreign nationals facing violation investigations or subsequent deportation procedures are generally entitled to seek legal advice and representation.

The Path After a Violation Investigation

If, as a result of the violation investigation, the Immigration Control Officer believes the suspect falls under a ground for deportation, the officer will, in most cases, issue a detention order (if not already detained) and transfer the suspect to an Immigration Inspector for an examination (Article 45). This examination by the Immigration Inspector is a separate step from the initial investigation. If the Inspector determines that the suspect is deportable, the case may proceed to an oral hearing before a Special Inquiry Officer, and potentially an objection to the Minister of Justice, before a final deportation order is issued.

Conclusion

Violation investigations conducted by Immigration Control Officers are a critical mechanism for enforcing Japan's immigration laws and maintaining the integrity of its borders and residency system. These officers are vested with significant powers, including the authority to request appearances, interrogate suspects and witnesses, demand the submission of documents, and, with a judicial warrant, conduct inspections, searches, and seizures. While these powers are broad, they are intended to be exercised within the framework of the ICRRA and with due regard for the administrative nature of the proceedings, distinct from criminal investigations. For foreign nationals, understanding these powers and the investigation process is crucial, as the outcome can have profound implications for their ability to remain in Japan.