Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
## Data Section 4 Immigration Litigation

# Section 1 ◆ Summary

Most administrative litigation, etc. relating to the Immigration Bureau (hereinafter referred to as “Immigration Litigation”) are litigations demanding nullification of a issuance of written deportation order issued to foreign nationals illegally residing in Japan, or those demanding reversal of non-recognition as a refugee. The number of litigation cases, which were filed and allowed in 2010, was 268 in the merit of the case (last year: 240). Looking at yearly changes from 2006 to 2010, the number of litigation cases, which were newly allowed, was consistently increasing until 2008, although the number decreased in 2009, it began to rise again in 2010. Also, the number of completed litigations by year was, in the merit of the case, 190 cases in 2006, 250 cases in 2007, 355 cases in 2008, 310 cases in 2009, and 288 cases in 2010, thus it still remains at high levels. (Table 52)

As a background to recent increases, the reform of the judicial system can be cited to aim to ensure more prompt proceedings through proper and sufficient procedures. In particular, the “Act for Partial Amendment of the Administrative Litigation Act” was put into force on April 1, 2005. This aimed to define a more effective remedial procedure for the rights and interests of people in connection with administrative litigations, the amendment of which involved the establishment of a system of provision (suggestion) of information on the statute of limitations, etc., extension of the statute of limitations, simplified and more easy-to-understand eligibility for defendants in nullification litigation, etc. and so on. Such amendments can be regarded as the background to the increase in the number of newly filed cases. Also, efforts are being made to further accelerate court proceedings as a whole due to the “Act for Prompt Proceedings” which was promulgated and came into force in July 2003, and which can be regarded as the background to the increase in the number of completed cases.

The Immigration Litigation of recent years also observes new types of filing for litigation, such as obligating special permission for residence, provisionally obligating provisional release permission, issuance of detention orders and their injunction or provisional injunction. The circumstances in which obligating litigation and injunction litigation were made statutory and a provisional remedy system prior to judgment on merit was defined by the “Act for Partial Amendment of the Administrative Litigation Act”, where litigation systems of these types were actively utilized, can be regarded as the background.
table 52: Trend in the number of filed cases of Immigration Litigation (the merit of case)

(Cases)

Year	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
Division
Administrative case	Procedures for deportation concerned (Demand for canceling; confirmation of invalidity, etc.)	164	158	234	162	172
Status of residence examinations concerned (Demand for canceling disposition of disapproval; confirmation of invalidity, etc.)	21	17	17	16	21
Certificate of eligibility (Demand for canceling disposition of non-issuance; confirmation of invalidity, etc.)	6	18	8	10	15
Procedures for refugee status concerned (Demand for canceling; confirmation of invalidity, etc.)	59	82	72	50	55
Others	2	3	4	1	5
Sub-Total	252	278	335	239	268
Civil case	11	2	1	1	0
Claim of the protection of personal liberty	0	0	0	0	0
Total	263	280	336	240	268
Completed litigations	190	250	355	310	288

## Section 2 ◆ Major Court Cases

## Court case 1: [Discretionary powers of the Minister of Justice and other

## authorities in accordance with the revised notification to long-term residents and with the decision of extension of period]

Considering that one of the purposes of the Immigration Control Act is to maintain security, the rationality of revision of the notification to long-term residents cannot be denied in the light of intent and purpose of the Immigration Control Act, because the revision (in the 2006 Ministry of Justice Notification No. 172) of that is directed to consideration of security in Japan by adding the requirement of good behavior and conduct, while retaining the policy judgment of offering preferential treatment to Japanese ancestries and their family. In addition, the revised public notice to long-term residents does not set out the requirement of good behavior and conduct (the notification to long-term residents after the revision) to encumbrances of refugees from Indochina and Viet Nam or Japanese residing in China with their dependants. This is understood as a result of intent to offer preferential treatment particularly to those people based on various reasons including international affairs and backgrounds concerning those countries, and relationship with Japan. Such political judgment, therefore, does not lack rationality.

The requirement of good behavior and conduct in the revised public notice to long-term residents does not directly require a history report of any criminal punishment but requires
Japan should be continuously guaranteed on the premise that the children grow up in Japan, is not always out of consideration for discretionary judgment, since the issue is a policy matter. However, it should not be appropriate to focus on the issue.

Thus, the appellants’ claim cannot be legally accepted for the case.

[Tokyo High Court Judgment on April 19, 2010]

## Court case 3: [The necessity of legal protection regarding a legally unmarried couple without living together

In view of the fact that the appellant resided in Japan without proper status, long-term residence means that the appellant’s illegal behavior of illegal stay continued for a long period and became aggravated. Upon the judgment of special permission of stay, long-term existence is not always considered as an advantage to the appellant. In particular, when considering the permission if the overstay involves unauthorized work, such existence should be considered as a negative factor.

As for the partnership between the appellant and his Japanese wife, she just registered their marriage right after the appellant was arrested. Although there was a glimpse of close relationship, the appellant did not live with his Japanese wife, while the appellant sent remittances to his brother living in his home country. In addition, the appellant and his Japanese wife individually earned their livings, and there were no economic ties such that the appellant regularly gave her living expenses. Furthermore, the appellant received certificates of legal capacity to contract marriage twice in 2006, but the appellant didn’t submit the marriage notification to prove he married his Japanese wife. It is impossible to say that the appellant and she lived together like a married couple. Their nominal relationship merely continued for a long period. The domestic relationship with the substance meeting the essence of marriage is hard to be accepted.

In the first place, where the appellant met his Japanese wife, the date of stay had been expired for over seven years. At the time when the appellant and she established the nominal relationship, over ten years had passed since the expiration. There is no choice but to assess that their relationship was developed under the illegal condition of continuous overstay. Therefore, it is very hard to find any necessity for the partnership.

As a conclusion, at that time when this case was decided, it was determined that the partnership between the appellant and his Japanese wife should be considered unacceptable to such a degree that the relationship must be estimated as worthwhile to legally protect on the judgment of special permission of status.

[Tokyo High Court Judgment on Aug 24, 2010]

## Court case 4: ["Persecution" under the Refugee Convention]

“Persecution” under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees should be interpreted as an infringement of “life or liberty” or oppression.

In addition, as the contents of this “liberty” are not always clear from a standpoint of the Convention, in the common sense, it is possible to define it as a concept including mental
The Immigration Control Act should be interpreted that the deportation order is supposed to be issued, even if the deportee cannot be physically deported. If the deportation to the designated country has been eventually impossible, the order in which the relevant country is designated as the destination for deportation is not to be immediately considered as illegal due to such impossibility.

[Tokyo District Court Judgment on November 19, 2011]
## Data Section 5 Organizational and Personnel Expansion

Given the significant changes in the circumstances affecting immigration control in recent years, and in response to an increase in the quantity and in the complexity of immigration duties, measures have been taken to improve and expand the organization and staff for immigration control.

At the end of FY 2010, immigration control administration work was carried out by about 3,700 officials at the Immigration Bureau of the Ministry of Justice and regional immigration bureaus. Due to an array of problems in immigration control policy and legal enforcements, further improvement and expansion of the organization and staff are still needed.

## Section 1 ◆ Organizations

## 1 Outline of the Organization of the Immigration Control Authority

The organization that is responsible for immigration control duties is the Immigration Bureau, which is designated as an internal bureau of the Ministry of Justice. There are eight regional jurisdictions, each of which has a regional immigration bureau as a policy-implementing local branch immigration office of the Ministry of Justice. Each regional immigration bureau manages the district immigration offices and branch offices (including branch offices within the district immigration offices) under its jurisdiction. The Ministry of Justice also maintains three immigration centers as detention facilities. The organization as a whole performs various duties associated with immigration control such as immigration examinations, residence examinations, deportation procedures, and refugee recognition procedures in accordance with the Immigration Control Act and relevant laws.

The Immigration Bureau, regional immigration bureaus, district immigration offices, branch offices, and immigration centers are collectively referred to as the “immigration control offices”. (Charts 24 and 25)
(*) Other than the positions mentioned above, one Assistant Deputy Vice-Minister of Justice and three Attorneys (legal specialists) are assigned to the Immigration Bureau.
collection of information on offenders against the Immigration Control Act, and establishing a more comprehensive framework for branch offices. In FY 2011, one supervising inspector was posted in each of seven branches, where immigration inspectors equal to or of a higher level than supervising inspectors had not been posted as the branch directors.

Table 53: Reorganization, abolition or establishment of branch offices of regional immigration bureaus

(As of April 1, 2011)

Division
Fiscal Year	Abolition	Establishment
Name	Location	Name	Location
2000	Amagasaki Port Branch Office
Kure Port Branch Office
Karatsu Port Branch Office
Imari Port Branch Office	Amagasaki City
Kure City
Karatsu City
Imari City	Saga Branch Office	Saga City
2001	Yokosuka Port Branch Office
Kagoshima Airport Branch Office
Shimizu Port Branch Office
Tagonoura Port Branch Office	Yokosuka City
Mizobe-cho Aira-gun
Shimizu City
Fuji City	Shizuoka Branch Office	Shizuoka City
2002	Iwakuni Port Branch Office
Yatsushiro Port Branch Office
Hitachi Port Branch Office
Kashima Port Branch Office	Iwakuni City
Yatsushiro City
Hitachi City
Kamisu-cho Kashima-gun	Kofu Branch Office
Gifu Branch Office
Otsu Branch Office
Mito Branch Office	Kofu City
Gifu City
Otsu City
Mito City
2003	Tokyo Port Branch Office
Shibuya Branch Office
Muroran Port Branch Office
Miyako Port Branch Office
Ofunato Port Branch Office
Ishinomaki Port Branch Office
Sasebo Port Branch Office
Naha Port Branch Office	Koto-ku Tokyo
Shibuya-ku Tokyo
Muroran City
Miyako City
Ofunato City
Ishinomaki City
Sasebo City
Naha City	Shinjiyuku Branch Office
Morioka Branch Office	Shinjiyuku-ku Tokyo
Morioka City
2004	Aomori Port Branch Office
Hachinohe Port Branch Office
Yokohama Port Branch Office
Nagoya Port Branch Office
Nagoya Airport Branch Office
Sakai Port Branch Office
Kobe Port Branch Office
Mizushima Port Branch Office
Shibushi Branch Office	Aomori City
Hachinohe City
Yokohama City
Nagoya City
Toyoyama-cho Nishikasugai-gun Aichi
Sakai City
Kobe City
Kurashiki City
Shibushi-cho Soo-gun Kagoshima	Aomori Branch Office	Aomori City
2005	Naoetsu Port Branch Office	Joetsu City
2007	Osaka Port Branch Office
Tennoji Branch Office	Osaka City
Osaka City	Tobu Branch Office	Edogawa-ku Tokyo
2010	Haneda Airport Branch Office	Ota-ku Tokyo

(*) The abolition of Haneda Airport Branch Office in FY2010 is due to the establishment of Haneda Airport District Immigration Office

## Section 2 ◆ Staff of the Immigration Bureau

## 1 Immigration Control Staff

In immigration centers and regional immigration bureaus, immigration inspectors and immigration control officers are assigned as staff who are engaged in immigration control duties. In addition, officers of legal affairs engage in general administrative duties and specialists of legal

Immigration Control Staff
affairs, including doctors, are also assigned.

Immigration inspectors are responsible for (i) examinations and hearings on landing and deportation, (ii) issuance of written detention orders and written deportation orders, (iii) provisional release, and (iv) investigation of recognition of refugees and statuses of residence. They are also engaged in examining statuses of residence as assistants for the Minister of Justice.

Immigration control officers are responsible for (i) investigation of violations concerning entry, landing or residence in Japan, (ii) detention, transportation and deportation of foreign nationals in order to execute written detention orders or written deportation orders, and (iii) treatment of inmates in immigration centers and detention facilities and guards of these detention facilities. They fall under police personnel in terms of the National Civil Service Law, while falling under public security service staff in terms of the Law Concerning Salaries for General Service Personnel, because they are often involved in dangerous tasks.

Immigration control officers are divided into seven ranks (Superintendent Supervisor, Chief Superintendent, Superintendent, Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant, and Officer, in order of descending superiority) in order to clarify the chain of command for group operations for detection.

Individual immigration inspectors and immigration control officers perform their duties independently as specialists in immigration control and therefore, the specialist system was introduced. These officials are required to have legal knowledge necessary for their duties as well as a balanced point of view from an international perspective and the ability to interact with foreign nationals flexibly while giving consideration to their diverse cultures, customs and religions and their human rights.

## 2 Personnel Reinforcement

The number of immigration control staff was 3,823 in FY 2011, up about 23% (703) from FY 2006 (3,120), five years ago. During this period, the number of cases handled by immigration control offices remained at a high level, and the immigration control duties have been getting more complicated and difficult due to the necessity of implementing stricter immigration examinations to prevent terrorism and illegal entry, coping with forged or altered documents that have become increasingly more sophisticated, strengthening residence management related to foreign residents after entry, enforcing strengthened detection of illegal foreign residents, some of whom are potential criminals, and implementing measures against foreign residents disguised as legal residents. (Chart 26, Table 54)
Table 54: Changes in the number of immigration control office personnel

(People)

Division Fiscal Year	Secretaries in the Ministry of Justice	Regional Immigration Bureaus	Total
Secretaries	Inspector	Control officer	Others	Sub-Total
1985	169	155	703	658	55	1,571	1,740
1990	166	154	777	673	46	1,650	1,816
1995	163	165	1,152	869	38	2,224	2,387
2000	157	164	1,196	998	26	2,384	2,541
2001	156	155	1,211	1,017	26	2,409	2,565
2002	154	146	1,268	1,070	25	2,509	2,663
2003	152	144	1,272	1,101	24	2,541	2,693
2004	142	142	1,343	1,183	23	2,691	2,833
2005	131	122	1,433	1,266	20	2,841	2,972
2006	129	122	1,494	1,367	8	2,991	3,120
2007	128	121	1,580	1,431	8	3,140	3,268
2008	127	129	1,626	1,523	8	3,286	3,413
2009	126	130	1,737	1,564	8	3,439	3,565
2010	126	135	1,881	1,564	8	3,588	3,714
2011	126	139	1,979	1,571	8	3,697	3,823

In FY 2011, 167 persons were additionally assigned as immigration inspectors and immigration control officers. An outline of the staff increase is as follows:
arranging the specialist staff to investigate violations and detect false residents involved in criminal groups in the Kanto Region where most of such false residents are presumed to be hidden. In addition, similar countermeasures are urgently required to be taken in other regions where a number of foreign residents reside.

For such measures, three immigration inspectors and sixteen immigration control officers were additionally posted in the Nagoya Regional Immigration Bureau, while eight immigration inspectors and 11 immigration control officers were additionally posted in bureaus and branches including the Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau.

## (3) Strengthened Refugee Adjudication System of the Regional Immigration Bureaus such as the Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau

The introduction of the refugee examination counselors system in 2005 enhanced the equity and neutrality of the refugee recognition procedures, but the number of applications for refugee status (primary examination) increased to 1,599 in 2008, almost quadrupling from 384 in 2005. The number of applications has remained at a high level, standing at 1,388 in 2009 and 1,202 in 2010.

Given the situation, the Immigration Bureau announced to make efforts to process all refugee recognition applications within six months, for the purpose of earlier acquisition of legal status as refugee of the people who should be recognized as refugees, in consideration of longer examination periods for refugee recognition applications. For the purpose of prompt processing in the primary examination, fifteen refugee examiners were posted in the Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau and one in the Nagoya Regional Immigration Bureau.

## 3 Staff Training

As the number of foreign nationals entering and departing from Japan has been increasing year by year and the types of residence have diversified, the volume of immigration services has increased and the contents of routine duties to be performed by immigration inspectors and immigration control officers have become more complicated and difficult. It is therefore indispensable to enhance the skills and abilities of the officers of the Immigration Bureau, and so we are in the process of enriching and reinforcing our training program targeted for those officers.

In addition to systematic training for newly employed persons, mid-career persons and managers implemented by the Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice, which is a training organization of the Ministry of Justice, the Immigration Bureau implements various kinds of training programs by not only the staff with expertise but also experts outside the Bureau invited to give a lecture for the purpose of enhancing the professional knowledge

Training
of staff. There are several sorts of staff training such as training for persons engaged in the detection of document forgery, training for persons engaged in entry and residence examination work, training for persons engaged in refugee recognition work, training for persons engaged in information system operation, and training for human rights and mental health.

Also, as the work of the Immigration Bureau is mainly concerned with international people, the Bureau makes efforts to improve language skills necessary for the work by arranging language classes for staff.
## Data Section 6 Budget

## Section 1 ♦ Budgets

Chart 26 shows the trends in budgets for immigration control administration. Despite severe fiscal and administrative limitations in recent years, the fiscal authorities approved the Immigration Bureau’s expenses to implement necessary immigration control duties and related policy projects leading to improvement and enhancement of immigration control administrative capabilities.

For the budget about computer operation, the cost of adapting to the new system of residence management was approved in the budget of FY 2011 in succession to the approval of the budget in 2010. (Charts 27 and 28).
## Section 2 ☐ Facilities

As of March 31, 2011, eight regional immigration bureaus in the nation are housing in an independent office of the Ministry of Justice (Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka), a joint office of the Ministry of Justice (Sendai, Takamatsu), an administrative joint office (Sapporo, Hiroshima), and a private facility (Fukuoka) respectively.

Three Immigration centers existing in the nation were completed after the year 1993, which are maintained as independent offices of the Ministry of Justice (Omura) and the general office of the Ministry of Justice (East Japan, West Japan).

Under globalization, more and more foreign nationals are entering and staying in Japan. In line with the internationalization and re-expansion of the Haneda Airport, the Haneda Airport District Immigration Office of the Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau was established in 2010.

The Immigration Bureau will continue to upgrade its immigration control facilities as needed for the purpose of ensuring proper implementation of immigration control policy. (Table 55)

Table 55: Changes in the capacity for detention

(People)

Fiscal Year	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Division
Total	3,848	3,848	3,998	3,998	4,010
Immigration Centers	1,800	1,800	1,800	1,800	1,800
Regional Immigration Bureaus	2,048	2,048	2,198	2,198	2,210

As of every March 31 (the number for 2011 is an estimate.)
2011 Immigration Control

November 2011

Immigration Bureau, Ministry of Justice, Japan

⊢ 100-8977 1-1-1 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
資料 1

# PTSD等治療に係る医療保険制度について

厚生労働省

第2回 犯罪被害者の精神的被害の回復に資する施策に関する研究会
①診療報酬の考え方

②精神疾患に対する評価について

③PTSDに対する評価

④臨床心理士等、医師以外の療養の評価について
## 診療報酬制度について

(1)診療報酬の仕組み

○ 診療報酬とは、保険医療機関及び保険薬局が保険医療サービスに対する対価として受け取る報酬

○ 厚生労働大臣が中央社会保険医療協議会 (中医協)の議論を踏まえ決定 (厚生労働大臣告示)

(2)診療報酬の内容

技術・サービスの評価

診療報酬

物の価格評価 (医薬品については薬価基準で価格を定める)

○ 診療報酬点数表では、個々の技術、サービスを点数化（1点 10円）して評価（告示に記載）※ 点数表の種類：医科、歯科、調剤
## 我が国の医療保険制度の基本的考え方

○ 必要な医療については基本的に、保険診療で行われるべきである。

○ 保険適用となるのは、治療の有効性・安全性が確認された医療である。

## 公的医療保険制度として

我が国の医療保険制度は公費、保険料を財源として成り立っていることから、保険給付の範囲の適正化等を図る必要がある。

例：治療の有効性・安全性が認められない、研究開発目的の医療や特殊療法は公費や保険料を充てるのになじまない。

## 患者にとって

医療サービスは、高度に専門的な内容を含むものであり、かつ、患者の生命・健康に直接かかわることから、患者の判断に委ねるには限界がある。

例；医師から保険適用の療法よりも、費用は高いが保険適用外の療法の方が効くと言われれば患者は断りにくい。
個々の医療技術が保険適用されるまでの基本的な流れ