Japan's 「永住許可制度の適正化 (making the permanent residence permission system appropriate)」 — the requirements for permanent residence permission written into the Act and grounds for revocation of a status of residence added (令和6年〈2024〉法律第60号; the effective date is April 1, 令和9年〈2027〉, except for some provisions)
Source material is a Japanese government announcement (in Japanese); this page is a summary.
What these materials deal with is the 「永住者」 status of residence, and it is expressly stated that 特別永住者 are 「今回の改正の対象ではありません」 — outside the scope of this amendment and of this Q&A. The grounds for revocation to be added are Article 22-4, paragraph 1, item 8 of the revised Immigration Control Act (failing without justifiable grounds to perform obligations under the Immigration Control Act; deliberately not paying taxes and public dues while aware of the obligation to pay) and item 9 (certain serious violations of penal laws and regulations, limited to intentional offences). The same material writes that revoking the status of residence is not envisaged for forgetting to carry the residence card, for not applying to renew the validity period, or for unavoidable non-payment because of illness or loss of employment, and writes that 過失運転致死傷, violations of the Road Traffic Act and fines do not fall under item 9, while adding that even a permanent resident who is sentenced to an actual term of imprisonment exceeding 1 year falls under the grounds for deportation regardless of the name of the offence and may be deported. Whether a ground for revocation applies, and if so whether to revoke the 「永住者」 status of residence or to change it to another status of residence, is decided by the Minister of Justice after a factual investigation by an immigration inspector or immigration control officer and a hearing of opinions by an immigration inspector; at the hearing the person or their representative is given an opportunity to state opinions and submit evidence, and it is written that where the person is dissatisfied with the disposition it is possible to bring an action for revocation or the like. It is written that even where a ground for revocation applies, except where it is found that it is not appropriate for the person to continue to reside in Japan, the status is changed ex officio to a status of residence other than 永住者 (in many cases 「定住者」), and that thereafter, once it is confirmed that public obligations are being properly performed and so on, it is possible to obtain permanent residence permission again. The Q&A writes that a person having difficulty paying taxes and public dues can consult the relevant administrative agency, and that a person with concerns about their own status of residence can also consult the FRESC (Foreign Residents Support Center) desk. As to when the provisions on making the permanent residence permission system appropriate apply from, these materials announce only the effective date of Act No. 60 as a whole (April 1, 令和9年 (2027), except for some provisions), and the individual effective date is not stated.
Key facts
| Legal basis | 令和6年 (2024) 法律第60号 「出入国管理及び難民認定法及び外国人の技能実習の適正な実施及び技能実習生の保護に関する法律の一部を改正する法律」. Enacted at the 213th ordinary session of the Diet on 令和6年6月14日 (June 14, 2024) and promulgated on the 21st of the same month |
|---|---|
| Effective date | For Act No. 60 it is announced as 「一部の規定を除き、令和9年(2027)4月1日」 (April 1, 令和9年 (2027), except for some provisions). The individual effective date of the provisions on making the permanent residence permission system appropriate is not stated in these materials (the Q&A, the PDF and the amendment information page) |
| Status of residence covered | 「永住者」. 特別永住者 is a status based on the 「日本国との平和条約に基づき日本の国籍を離脱した者等の出入国の管理に関する特例法」 and is 「今回の改正の対象ではありません」, so it is also outside the scope of this Q&A. A person who has naturalised is not subject to residence management under the Immigration Control Act |
| The requirement written into the Act (the Agency announces this as 「明確化 (clarification)」) | Among the current requirement 「その者の永住が日本国の利益に合する」, the point currently stated in the 「永住許可に関するガイドライン」 as 「公的義務を適正に履行していること」 is written into the Act as 「この法律に規定する義務の遵守、公租公課の支払等」. The Agency states that 「新たな永住許可の要件を加えるものではなく、許可の要件を厳格化するものでもありません」 |
| Additional ground for revocation — Article 22-4, paragraph 1, item 8 | Failing 「正当な理由なく (without justifiable grounds)」 to perform an obligation that a permanent resident must comply with under the Immigration Control Act — an obligation that is not prescribed as a ground for deportation but whose compliance is backed by penalties — and 「故意に公租公課の支払をしないこと」 (deliberately not paying while aware of the obligation to pay; the example envisaged is a case where the person knows there are taxes and public dues to be paid and has the ability to pay but does not pay). 「公租公課」 covers, besides taxes, public charges such as social insurance premiums. Where a person has simply forgotten to carry their residence card or has not applied to renew the validity period, and unavoidable non-payment because of illness or loss of employment where it is hard to find the person at fault, are cases where 「取り消すことは想定していません」 (revocation is not envisaged). Even where the item applies, the decision is made according to the individual and specific circumstances, such as how the non-payment came about and how the person responded to demands for payment |
| Additional ground for revocation — Article 22-4, paragraph 1, item 9 | 「一定の重大な刑罰法令違反に限られており」 — limited to certain serious violations of penal laws and regulations, such as the offences of theft, fraud, extortion and homicide under the Penal Code and 危険運転致死傷 under the 「自動車の運転により人を死傷させる行為等の処罰に関する法律」 — all of which are intentional offences, and being sentenced to 拘禁刑 (imprisonment) is a requirement. 過失運転致死傷, violations of the Road Traffic Act and fines are not covered by this item. However, even a permanent resident who is sentenced to an actual term of imprisonment exceeding 1 year falls under the grounds for deportation regardless of the name of the offence and may be deported |
| Handling where a ground applies (the PDF outline chart and Q12) | For the case 「永住許可の要件を満たさなくなる場合」 (where the requirements for permanent residence permission cease to be met), the PDF outline chart presents three branches following a careful investigation of the facts: ① continued residence under the 永住者 status of residence (※入管法上の措置をしない — no measure is taken under the Immigration Control Act); ② a change to another status of residence (定住者) → 「再度永住許可を受けることが可能」 (引き続き在留可能 — residence can continue); and ③ revocation (where it is found that it is not appropriate for the person to continue to reside in Japan). As to the 「引き続き本邦に在留することが適当でないと認める場合」 in ③, the note (※) to Q12 of the Q&A writes that this envisages, for example, cases where it is clear that the person has no intention of paying taxes and public dues going forward, or where criminal tendencies have progressed |
| Procedure and remedies | The Minister of Justice has an immigration inspector or immigration control officer carry out a factual investigation and has an immigration inspector hear the opinions of the foreign national concerned. At the hearing the person or their representative has an opportunity to state opinions and submit evidence. Where the person is dissatisfied with an ex officio change of status of residence or with a disposition revoking the 「永住者」 status of residence, it is possible to bring an action for revocation or the like |
| Article 25 of the supplementary provisions of the amending Act (added by the Diet) | It provides that, in applying the part of Article 22-4, paragraph 1 relating to item 8, 「十分配慮するものとする」 — due consideration shall be given to the past payment situation of taxes and public dues, the current living situation and the other circumstances of a foreign national considered to fall under that item. The Agency states that, on the basis of that purpose, it will make its decisions with full consideration also of the person's degree of settlement in Japan, living situation and the like, and will operate the system carefully |
Last checked:
The 出入国在留管理庁 (Immigration Services Agency) is publicising, as 「永住許可制度の適正化 (making the permanent residence permission system appropriate)」, a clarification of the requirements for permanent residence permission and the addition of grounds for revocation of a status of residence. The basis is 令和6年 (2024) 法律第60号, enacted at the 213th ordinary session of the Diet on June 14, 令和6年 (2024) and promulgated on the 21st of the same month, and the effective date of this Act is announced as 「一部の規定を除き、令和9年(2027)4月1日」 (April 1, 令和9年 (2027), except for some provisions) (the individual effective date of the provisions relating to permanent residence is not stated in these materials). As to the 「明確化 (clarification)」 of the requirements, the Agency explains that, among the current Immigration Control Act requirement 「その者の永住が日本国の利益に合する」, the point currently stated in the 「永住許可に関するガイドライン」 as 「公的義務を適正に履行していること」 is written into the Act as 「この法律に規定する義務の遵守、公租公課の支払等」, and it states that 「新たな永住許可の要件を加えるものではなく、許可の要件を厳格化するものでもありません」 (this neither adds new requirements for permanent residence permission nor makes the requirements for permission stricter). The grounds for revocation to be added are Article 22-4, paragraph 1, item 8 of the revised Immigration Control Act (failing to comply with the obligations prescribed in this Act; intentionally not paying taxes and public dues) and item 9 (certain serious violations of penal laws and regulations). As to item 8, the Q&A states that this means failing to comply 「正当な理由なく (without justifiable grounds)」, and writes that where a person has simply forgotten to carry their residence card, where a person has not applied to renew the validity period of their residence card, or where a person is unavoidably unable to pay taxes and public dues because of illness, loss of employment or the like, in circumstances where it is hard to find the person at fault, 「在留資格を取り消すことは想定していません」 (revoking the status of residence is not envisaged). It writes that item 9 is limited to certain serious violations of penal laws and regulations, such as the offences of theft, fraud, extortion and homicide under the Penal Code and 危険運転致死傷 (dangerous driving causing death or injury), that all of them are intentional offences, and that 過失運転致死傷 (negligent driving causing death or injury), violations of the Road Traffic Act and fines are not covered (it adds, however, that even a permanent resident who is sentenced to an actual term of imprisonment exceeding 1 year falls under the grounds for deportation regardless of the name of the offence and may be deported). It writes that even where a ground for revocation applies, the status of residence is not revoked and the person made to leave the country immediately; rather, except where it is found that it is not appropriate for the person to continue to reside in Japan, the Minister of Justice permits, ex officio, a change to a status of residence other than 永住者 (in many cases 「定住者」), and that thereafter, once it is confirmed that public obligations are being properly performed and so on, it is possible to obtain permanent residence permission again. 特別永住者 (special permanent residents) are 「今回の改正の対象ではありません」 — outside the scope of this amendment and of this Q&A.
Background — why this change
The basis is the 「出入国管理及び難民認定法及び外国人の技能実習の適正な実施及び技能実習生の保護に関する法律の一部を改正する法律」 (令和6年 (2024) 法律第60号), enacted at the 213th ordinary session of the Diet on June 14, 令和6年 (2024) and promulgated on the 21st of the same month. On the same day the 「出入国管理及び難民認定法等の一部を改正する法律」 (令和6年法律第59号) was also enacted and promulgated; the outline of No. 59 is announced as the integration of the マイナンバーカード and the residence card and its effective date is June 14, 令和8年 (2026), except for some provisions, while the outline of No. 60 is announced as 「育成就労制度の創設等」 and its effective date is April 1, 令和9年 (2027), except for some provisions. 「永住許可制度の適正化について」 (PDF) and the 「永住許可制度の適正化Q&A」 are posted on the information page for this No. 60. As to the current system, the Q&A writes that 「永住者」 is one of the statuses of residence under the Immigration Control Act and that, unlike other statuses of residence, it has no restriction on activities or on the period of stay, so the person does not go through residence examination procedures such as renewal of the period of stay, but is still subject to residence management under the Immigration Control Act, including the status-of-residence revocation system and the deportation system. It states that the current requirements for permanent residence permission are in principle the three requirements that (1) the person's 素行 (conduct) is good, (2) the person has sufficient assets or skills to make an independent living, and (3) the person's permanent residence is in the interests of Japan, and that the specific content is set out in the 「永住許可に関するガイドライン」. As current grounds for revocation it lists failing to notify a new place of residence, notifying a false place of residence, and having obtained permanent residence permission by fraudulent or other wrongful means, and it writes that even a permanent resident may be deported where, for example, the person is sentenced to an actual term of imprisonment exceeding 1 year or is convicted of a drug offence. The PDF material gives, as a footnote to 「一定の要件」, 「素行善良・独立生計・日本国の利益に合致（10年以上の在留、公的義務の履行など）」. As to the purpose, the Immigration Services Agency explains that, because there is no residence examination after permanent residence permission is granted, there are some 「悪質な場合 (malicious cases)」 in which requirements that were met at the time of permission cease to be met afterwards, and that the measure is intended to carry out appropriate residence management for permanent residents whose residence situation cannot be assessed as good. The Q&A, for its part, includes a question item (Q6) reading 「公租公課の不払が問題なのであれば、日本人と同様に督促や差押えで対応すれば十分であり、在留資格の取消しは永住者に対する過剰な措置ではないでしょうか」, to which the Agency writes 「今般の措置は、公的義務を適正に履行せず、在留状況が良好とは評価できないような場合に適切な在留管理を行うことを目的とするものであって、過剰な措置であるとは考えていません」. The Q&A also writes that Article 25 of the supplementary provisions of the amending Act was added by the Diet. That provision states that, in applying the part of Article 22-4, paragraph 1 of the new Immigration Control Act relating to item 8, 「十分配慮するものとする」 — due consideration shall be given to the past payment situation of taxes and public dues, the current living situation and the other circumstances in which the foreign national considered to fall under that item is placed — and the Agency writes that, on the basis of that purpose, it will make its decisions with full consideration also of the person's degree of settlement in Japan, living situation and the like, and will operate the system carefully.
Summaries below are factual notes based on government announcements and primary sources — not evaluations or opinions.
Summaries reflect national-level programs. Municipal (city/ward/town) programs may differ — confirm with the official desk before applying.
FAQ
If a person cannot pay taxes and public dues, is their status of residence revoked straight away?
The Q&A explains the 「故意に公租公課の支払をしないこと」 in item 8 as deliberately not paying although aware of the obligation to pay, and gives as an example a case where the person knows there are taxes and public dues to be paid and has the ability to pay but does not pay. On the other hand, it writes that where a person is unavoidably unable to pay because of illness, loss of employment or the like, in circumstances where it is hard to find the person at fault, 「在留資格を取り消すことは想定していません」 (revoking the status of residence is not envisaged). It also states that even where a ground for revocation applies, whether to revoke or take other action is decided according to the individual and specific circumstances, such as how the non-payment came about and how the permanent resident responded to demands for payment. As for cases where the non-payment situation has been resolved after the fact through an attachment disposition or the like, it writes that the fact that the purpose of collection has been achieved does not necessarily mean the person is outside the scope of revocation or other action, while also writing that whether it was resolved after the fact is taken into account together with the amount and period of arrears in the individual case and how the person responded to the measures of the relevant agencies, such as whether they complied with payment.
Is forgetting to carry a residence card, or not applying to renew its validity period, also subject to revocation?
Item 8 prescribes as grounds for revocation 「この法律に規定する義務を遵守せず」 and 「故意に公租公課の支払をしないこと」. As to the former wording, the Q&A explains that it means failing 「正当な理由なく (without justifiable grounds)」 to perform an obligation that a permanent resident must comply with under the Immigration Control Act — an obligation that is not prescribed as a ground for deportation but whose compliance is backed by penalties. It then writes that, because making the permanent residence permission system appropriate targets 「一部の悪質な者 (some malicious persons)」 who have ceased to meet the requirements after obtaining permanent residence permission, and does not target the great majority of permanent residents, revoking a status of residence is not envisaged where, for example, a person has simply forgotten to carry their residence card or has not applied to renew the validity period of their residence card.
Do traffic accidents or fines fall under the ground for revocation for violations of penal laws and regulations?
The Q&A writes that the violations of penal laws and regulations prescribed in item 9 are 「一定の重大な刑罰法令違反に限られており」 — limited to certain serious violations such as the offences of theft, fraud, extortion and homicide under the Penal Code and 危険運転致死傷 under the Act on Punishment of Acts Inflicting Death or Injury on Others by Driving a Motor Vehicle — and that all of them target intentional offences. Accordingly, it states that a person punished for the offence of 過失運転致死傷 after causing a traffic accident is not covered by this item; that the Road Traffic Act is not included among the penal laws and regulations prescribed as grounds for revocation, so a person punished for a violation of the Road Traffic Act is not covered in the first place; and that, as the content of the punishment must be a sentence of 拘禁刑, a person sentenced to a fine is likewise not covered. The same item adds, however, that even a permanent resident who is sentenced to an actual term of imprisonment exceeding 1 year falls under the grounds for deportation regardless of the name of the offence and may be deported.
If I become subject to this, what happens to the status of residence of my spouse and children?
The Q&A writes that only a person who falls under a ground for revocation of a status of residence is subject to revocation or change of the status of residence, and that being a family member of such a person is not itself a reason to be subject to revocation or to a change to a status of residence other than 「永住者」. Accordingly, where the status of residence of a permanent resident's child is 「永住者」 or 「永住者の配偶者等」, there is no effect on that status of residence, and where a spouse's status of residence is 「永住者」 there is likewise no effect. It is written, however, that where a spouse's status of residence is 「永住者の配偶者等」, it will be changed to a status of residence such as 「定住者」.
In what cases is a report made to the Immigration Services Agency? Will a report be made if I go to the city or ward office to consult about resident tax?
The Q&A writes that, although Article 62-2 of the revised Immigration Control Act provides that a national or local government employee may, when in the course of their duties they become aware of a foreign national considered to fall under a ground for revocation of a status of residence, report that fact, 「その通報は義務ではありません」 (that report is not an obligation). It states that the Immigration Services Agency plans to prepare and publish guidelines on the cases in which revocation of a status of residence is envisaged and the like, to serve as a reference when national and local government employees judge whether to report, and that receiving a report is not envisaged where a person has merely gone to consult a relevant agency in order to pay taxes and public dues. It also writes that a person having difficulty paying taxes and public dues can consult the relevant administrative agency, and that a person with concerns about their own status of residence can also consult the FRESC desk.