should be allowed to continue residing in Japan as a spouse of a “long-term resident”. However, the law intends to give special consideration to marriages of foreign nationals with Japanese nationals by establishing an independent status of residence “Spouse or child of Japanese National”, while there is no status of residence “Spouse or child of Long-term Residents” So, the above Supreme Court decision is different from this case in purpose, and it is undeniable that the above decision should not be applied to this case. Practically, if a foreign national marries a long-term resident, the long-term resident is also a foreign national, not Japanese, who must return to his/her home country after the period of stay from a legal standpoint. Consequently, it should be decided based on the relevant period of stay whether the foreign national has lost the substantial base in a social life due to the broken marriage. In other words, it should not be decided based on matters concerning the long-term future, in particular, the credibility of the statement that there is no chance of mending the marital relationship.

[Tokyo District Court Judgment on October 2, 2009]

## Court case 3 [Activities outside scope permitted, which are beyond the acceptable level as required by law]

The appellee has resided in Japan with the status of residence of “College Student” since April 2002, and has been engaged in activities outside scope permitted. The appellee had worked at a Chinese restaurant with permission for the first two years, but after that, had worked as a nightclub hostess without permission and had earned 5 to 6 million yen in total. She also gained 4.3 to 5.3 million yen as commissions for job placement of foreign entertainers. Moreover, she took more than 10 million yen withdrawn from her bank account and 3.9 million yen withdrawn from her husband’s bank account back to her home country without following the required procedure, and saved a considerable portion of the remaining income of her husband, .... Judging from the fact that the appellee took all money earned from illegal work identified by the investigation to her home country and her husband also took his earnings out of Japan or saved them, a major part of the appellee’s income earned from illegal work was not needed in order to ensure that the appellee could continue to study. .... It is hard to say that most of the appellee’s work was essential to continuing activities permitted under the status of residence, and the status of residence is undoubtedly considered to be used as an excuse or means to engage in activities outside scope permitted. In other words, the activities outside scope permitted in which the appellee have been engaged are not a simple matter of unpermitted activities, but are problematic in terms of a deviation from the acceptable level as required by law and misuse of the status of residence for the purpose of continuing and facilitating activities outside scope permitted. Illegality of such activities shall not be determined depending on whether the appellee has engaged in activities to receive education to the extent required by the law.

[Hiroshima High Court Judgment on February 5, 2009]

## Court case 4 [Discretionary powers of principal inspectors under the preparatory detention policy and the provisional release system]

With regard to foreign nationals’ entry to Japan, there are no provisions in the Constitution, and the international customary law does not oblige nations to accept foreign nationals. Each country is supposed