relevant applicants to behave well just at the time of permission of extension of stay. Although the adoption of requiring a history report of any criminal punishment in a certain period before relevant permission of extension of stay is a factor to decide whether applicants will behave well or not, it should be understood that such punishment has nature to characteristically show bad behavior at the time of relevant permission of extension of stay. Furthermore, in consideration of the status of "long-term residents" in the Immigration Control Law described before and the nature of the public notice to long-term residents, it is natural to think that the public notice to long-term residents should be revised in accordance with various factors. A wide range of discretionary powers are given to the Minister of Justice and other authorities in terms of the way to decide on the public notice to long-term residents and the decision whether to permit extension of stay or not. The way and decision should be precisely judged in a timely fashion based on various reasons including public safety which is one of the purposes of immigration control. The Minister of Justice and other authorities, therefore, cannot be determined to have abused their discretionary powers, even if the adequateness of the status of "long-term residence" is denied due to the history of criminal punishment or other reasons, and extension of stay is not permitted.

Requiring a history report of any criminal punishment within a certain period prior to the extension of period of stay and other relevant factors are criteria for the requirement of good behavior and conduct, because such factors are distinctive characteristics which show the relevant applicant may not behave well at the time of extension of piriod of stay. Even if his/her suspended period is expired, or even if the course of probation is good, the nature as characteristics including any such history of criminal punishment is not lost immediately. If relevant authorities use the history of criminal punishment and other relevant factors as criterion of the requirement of good behavior and conduct, it cannot be determined that they abused their discretionary powers.

[Osaka District Court judgment on February 10, 2010]

## Court case 2: [Factors to be considered in the event children of an appellant are to be deported to their home countries (continuous guarantee of rights to receive education in Japan)]

The appellants insist that the appellants’ children should be considered for continuous guarantee to receive education which the children currently enjoy but not for the possibility for the children to be familiar with the life environment in their home countries, if the children are deported to the home countries, when the legality of issuance of written deportation order issued to foreign nationals illegally residing in Japan is judged.

However, when considering the legality of the deportation order, it is significantly important to review whether the children of appellants can be sufficiently familiar with the life environment in their countries (the children can adapt to education on the premise that the children will grow up in their home countries), from the standpoint of the respect of family life.

On the other hand, the issue of whether the right for the children to receive education in