Immigration Law in Japan

Overview of Japanese Immigration Law

Japanese immigration law is principally governed by the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (Shutsunyukoku Kanri oyobi Nanmin Nintei Ho, Act No. 319 of 1951; “ICRRA”). Originally enacted as a postwar measure to regulate the movement of persons into and out of Japanese territory, the ICRRA has undergone successive revisions — most significantly in 2018 and 2023 — that have transformed it from a narrowly restrictive instrument into a more differentiated, though still cautious, regime for managing migration. The Ministry of Justice, through the Immigration Services Agency (Nyukoku Zairyu Kanri Cho), administers the Act and exercises broad discretionary powers over admission, residence, and deportation.

The Residence Status System (Zairyu Shikaku)

The core of Japan’s immigration framework is the residence status system, which classifies foreign nationals into 29 discrete statuses, each carrying specific permitted activities, duration of stay, and conditions. The most frequently granted statuses include Engineer/Specialist in Humanities/International Services (the most common work visa for white-collar professionals), Skilled Labor (for certified trades such as chefs, sports instructors, and traditional craftspeople), Student, Spouse or Child of Japanese National, Permanent Resident, and Long-Term Resident (Teijusha). Each status is governed by its own criteria in the ICRR A Enforcement Regulations.

The Highly Skilled Professional (Kodo Jinzai) status, introduced in 2012, employs a points-based system that awards scores based on academic background, professional experience, income, age, and Japanese language ability. Foreign nationals scoring 70 points or above receive preferential treatment, including a five-year residence period, permission to engage in multiple activities, and a fast track to permanent residency after three years (or one year for those scoring 80 points or more). This system reflects Japan’s strategic turn toward attracting high-value human capital in response to demographic decline.

The Specified Skilled Worker (SSW) Regime

The 2018 revision of the ICRRA created the Specified Skilled Worker (Tokutei Ginou) residence status, a watershed in Japanese immigration policy. For the first time, Japan opened a legal pathway for blue-collar foreign labor in 14 designated industries, including nursing care, construction, agriculture, hospitality, and shipbuilding. SSW is divided into two tiers: SSW-1, which requires passing a skills examination and a Japanese language test (at least A2 level on the JF Standard), and SSW-2, which requires a higher level of skill and permits indefinite renewal and family accompaniment. The 2023 revision expanded SSW-2 to cover all 14 industries, effectively creating a pathway to long-term settlement for blue-collar workers. As of 2025, over 200,000 foreign nationals hold SSW status, with the largest numbers employed in the nursing care and construction sectors.

The 2023 Reform and the End of the Technical Intern Training Program

The 2023 ICRRA reform also dismantled the long-criticized Technical Intern Training Program (Gino Jisshu Seido, “TITP”), which had been in place since 1993. TITP was originally framed as an international contribution through skills transfer but was widely condemned as a cover for cheap labor, with persistent reports of human rights abuses, wage theft, and physical mistreatment. The new law replaces TITP with a “Training and Skill Acquisition” (Jinzai Ikusei) system, effective 2024, which emphasizes genuine skills development and grants interns greater mobility between employers, a statutory minimum wage guarantee, and access to labour dispute resolution mechanisms. This reform represents Japan’s most significant shift in migration governance since the ICRRA’s enactment.

Refugee Recognition and Asylum

Japan’s refugee recognition regime operates under ICRRA Articles 61-2 through 61-13. The system has attracted sustained international criticism for its exceptionally low recognition rate, consistently remaining under 2% of applicants — the lowest among OECD countries. In 2024, for example, Japan recognized only 43 of approximately 5,000 applications as Convention refugees. The government’s narrow interpretation of the 1951 Refugee Convention definition, coupled with a tendency to categorize many asylum seekers as economic migrants, explains the low rate. Applicants are also subject to the immigration detention system (Nyukoku Kosho), under which overstayers and rejected asylum seekers may be held in administrative detention facilities for extended periods. The UN Human Rights Committee and other bodies have criticized the conditions and duration of detention. A 2024 court ruling in the Mahbobeh case declared six years of immigration detention unlawful, signalling possible judicial pushback against executive discretion in this area.

Special Permanent Resident Status

A unique feature of Japanese immigration law is the Special Permanent Resident (Tokubetsu Eijusha) status, which applies to Zainichi Koreans and other colonial-era migrants and their descendants who lost Japanese nationality under the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty. Special permanent residents enjoy stronger protections against deportation than ordinary permanent residents and are exempt from certain re-entry permit requirements. However, they continue to face exclusion from voting rights and access to certain public-sector jobs, and their status remains a subject of political and legal contestation, particularly in light of the 2014 Supreme Court decision in Korea v. Japan (concerning access to welfare benefits) and ongoing debates about local suffrage for long-term foreign residents.

Local Government Support and Integration

Integration policy in Japan is largely decentralized, with local governments playing a leading role. The Multicultural Coexistence (Tabunka Kyosei) framework, promoted by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications since 2006, encourages municipalities to provide Japanese language classes, multilingual information, and school enrolment support. The 2019 Comprehensive Measures for the Acceptance of Foreign Nationals created a national coordination body and established “One-Stop Support Centers” in prefectures with large foreign populations. Despite these efforts, Japan lacks an explicit national integration law comparable to those in European states, and access to social welfare, housing, and healthcare remains uneven for non-permanent residents.

Conclusion

Japanese immigration law is at a crossroads. The introduction of the SSW regime and the abolition of TITP represent genuine openings, but the refugee recognition system, the reliance on administrative detention, and the absence of a coherent integration framework reveal persistent tensions between economic necessity and social closure. The demographic imperative — Japan’s population is projected to decline by one-third by 2070 — will almost certainly drive further liberalization, but the pace and direction of reform remain contested in the Diet and in Japanese society.