Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
Bureau makes efforts to strictly respond to foreign nationals falling under the category of grounds of deportation, by revoking his or her status of residence and then making them undergo the deportation procedures.

## 2 Crackdown on False Residents, etc

## (1) Reinforcement of Collection and Analysis of Information

In order to promote measures against false residents, it is important to carry out more effective crackdown such as detections based on collected and analyzed information.

For that purpose, by making use of information obtained through information exchange with relevant organizations, such as the police, and information about reports on employment of foreign workers provided by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, in addition to a lot of information on illegal residents sent from the public as stated above, the Immigration Bureau is working to find and detect disguised residents, and deal with them strictly.

## (2) Strengthened Detection of Those Engaged in Activities Other than Those Permitted/Strict Response to Those Falling under the Category of Revocation of the Statuses of Residence of False Residents

When it is found that those who reside in Japan with a status of residence that has a limit to activities, engage solely in work which does not fall under the scope of permitted status of residence granted at the time of entry, they shall be considered to be engaged in activities other than those permitted and are subject to deportation. Therefore, detection of such people has been actively promoted.

The Immigration Bureau makes efforts to strengthen crackdown. For example, immigration control officers and immigration inspectors cooperate to conduct investigations to clear up the actual situation. If a foreign national is found to fall under the category of revocation of the status of residence, his or her status of residence will be revoked and then he or she will undergo the deportation procedures.

## ☑ Addition of Grounds for Deportation to Correctly Deal with the Furtherance of Illegal Work etc

The following grounds were newly added for the purpose of dealing with the furtherance of illegal work in accordance with the revised Immigration Control Act promulgated in July 2009 and enforced on July 1, 2010.

A. Inducement and accessoryship of behavior including forging or alteration of documents for the purpose of illegal permissions of other foreign nationals

B. Furtherance of illegal work $ ^{*} $
C. Imprisonment or severer punishment due to engagement in activities other than those permitted by the status of residence granted to the foreign national

## Section 3 ◆ Efforts toward Proper Treatment of Detainees

### 1 Activities, etc., of the Immigration Detention Facilities Visiting Committee

There are 23 immigration detention centers and departure standby facilities, which should be inspected by the Immigration Detention Facilities Visiting Committee. Duties to inspect such facilities and interview detainees are shared by each committee established in the Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau and the Osaka Regional Immigration Bureau. Based on the results, each committee submits an opinion on the operations of those facilities to directors of detention centers or director-generals of regional immigration bureaus (hereinafter referred to as "directors, etc."), and the directors, etc., promptly undertake reviews of the opinions submitted by each committee and take appropriate action on them, starting with those which can be dealt with immediately. In addition, the presidents have decided to act as an opinion submitted immediately by each committee to take appropriate actions after examination.

Committee members are selected from personnel who have an excellent personality and deep insight and who show enthusiasm for improving the operations of immigration detention centers, etc., and are appointed as part-time staff by the Minister of Justice. Specifically, ten or less members are appointed for each committee from intellectuals in diverse fields, including academic experts, legal experts, medical experts, NGO workers, international organ workers, and representatives of local communities.

## 2 Verification Regarding Provisional Release of Foreign Nationals to be Detained in Accordance with Deportation Order

The Immigration Bureau decided to make efforts to implement a more proper deportation procedure for detained foreign nationals whose detainment continues for a significant period after issuance of deportation order, by periodically verifying and reviewing the necessity of provisional release of the detained people for the future, utilizing the release system flexibly in accordance with individual reasons.

Under the Immigration Control Act, the foreign nationals whose deportation orders have been issued shall be promptly sent to their home countries. If there are no places outside Japan to send such people, they may be detained until they are able to be sent for the purpose of custody for repatriation and prohibition of residence activities. In the case of lifting detention temporarily, on the other hand, the provisional release system is used.

So far, individual regional immigration offices have made efforts to ensure fair application of the provisional release system. In recent years, however, the number of people detained for a long term has been increasing due to various reasons. The Immigration Bureau decided to make directors of detention centers or director-generals of regional immigration bureaus verify and review the
necessity and reason of provisional release periodically for the detained foreign nationals to whom deportation orders have been issued but who are detained for a significant term, in consideration of the provisional release system whether or not a provisional release is already applied for.

Based on the result of verification and review, the Immigration Bureau is making efforts to implement a more proper deportation procedure by utilizing the provisional release system in accordance with individual reasons and possibly avoiding longer detention.

## 3 The Agreement with the Japan Federation of Bar Associations Concerning Immigration Control Administration

The Immigration Bureau agreed with the Japan Federation of Bar Associations on September 9, 2010, to have opportunities to consult with each other on measures to implement more preferable conditions concerning various issues of detention associated with immigration control association and, as a part of the implementation of such measures, to promote efforts including legal consultation for detained foreign nationals with attorneys.

In particular, in terms of legal consultation, the Immigration Bureau decided to provide legal consultation in cooperation with the Japan Federation of Bar Associations through telephone consultation and consultation with dispatched counselors held by bar associations. Individual bar associations are supposed to improve the conditions of consultation, while cooperating with the bureau on guidance for consultation and securing of places for interviews. In addition, specified attorneys, who are representatives of detained foreign nationals, are notified of the time when relevant foreign nationals are to be repatriated, in order for relevant information to contribute to determination for activities including lawsuits.

The Immigration Bureau is supposed to continuously consult with the Federation to implement more preferable conditions concerning various issues on detainment.
## Chapter 9 Appropriate Operation of Special Permission to stay in Japan

Under the Immigration Control Act, the Minister of Justice is authorized to grant special permission to stay to an offender against the law, and his decision shall be made individually with respect to each case by comprehensively judging it from various factors, including the reason for stay, family conditions, behavior, current situation both at home and abroad, need for humanitarian considerations, and impact on other illegal residents.

The Immigration Bureau is taking various measures, including formulation and announcement of the “Guidelines on Special Permission to Stay in Japan” and announcement of the “Cases where Special Permission to stay was granted and Cases where Special Permission to Stay in Japan was denied”, to enhance the transparency and predictability of special permission to stay.

## Section 1 ☐ Application of Special Permission Based on the “Guidelines on Special Permission to Stay in Japan”

Whether or not to grant special permission to stay shall be decided by the Minister of Justice based on comprehensive consideration of various factors with regard to each case, and general criteria shall not be fit for such permission. However, in order to further enhance the transparency and fairness of the special permission to stay, the “Guidelines on Special Permission to Stay in Japan”, has been decided and announced.

These “Guidelines on Special Permission to Stay in Japan” provides more details concerning matters to be considered in judging whether to grant special permission to stay or not. It also presents the concept for judgment. The guideline, therefore, is to be applied to judge whether to grant special permission to stay or not.

Although only the Japanese Edition of the guideline had been published until May 2010, the guideline was translated in multiple languages of English, Chinese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, and Tagalog and posted on the websites.

## Section 2 ☐ Enhancement of the “Cases where Special Permission to Stay in Japan was Granted and Cases where Special Permission to Stay in Japan was Denied”

The Immigration Bureau has made public, examples of those who are granted special permission to stay and those who are not granted on the website of the Ministry of Justice since August 2004. For the purpose of enhancing the transparency and fairness of the special permission to stay, the bureau classified and organized such examples for better understanding and published them in a table. In addition, the bureau also published new examples in the same form in April, 2011.
## Chapter 10 Promotion of Appropriate and Prompt Refugee Protection

## Section 1 ♦ The Establishment and Publication of Targets for the Handling Period of Refugee Recognition Examinations

In July 2010, based on prolonged periods of refugee examination, the Immigration Bureau set six months as the standard period to process one refugee application and decided to process all applications within the period by the end of March 2011 in principle. In addition, the Immigration Bureau decided to announce the average processing (examination) period for refugee applications on a website of the Ministry of Justice on a quarter basis.

As of the end of June 2010 before establishment of the targets, there were 612 applications which had not been processed for over six months since they applied for refugee status. Now, as of the end of March, 2011, the number of unprocessed applications was reduced to 35. This figure shows that our goal was nearly achieved.

In the future, the Immigration Bureau will promote more proper and prompt refugee examination by collecting and organizing basic materials concerning information on the pending refugees' countries of origin and improving systems to improve expertise of staff members, and maintaining the standard period of six months.

## Section 2 ◆ Publication of Refugees'Countries of Origins

After the Japan Federation of Bar Associations proposed to enrich materials by establishing a data center concerning information on refugees' countries of origins so that applicants can browse and use them, the Immigration Bureau has posted information concerning refugees' countries of origins and international affairs since November 2010 on websites of the Ministry of Justice (In particular, reports of the United Kingdom Home Office and the United States Department of State are translated in Japanese and introduced on the websites.)

## Section 3 ☐ Acceptance of Refugees through Resettlement to a Third Country

Resettlement to a third country is intended to transfer and resettle refugees who have evacuated from their countries of origins are temporarily taking shelter in a refugee camp in a neighboring country etc., to another country which agrees to accept such refugees from the countries where they were originally taken under protection. Resettlement to a third country is deemed to be one of the permanent solutions for refugee problems, as well as “voluntary repatriation” and “resettlement to the first countries of asylum”.

The UNHCR encourages each country to accept refugees based on resettlement to a third country
from the standpoint of proper sharing of burdens in relation to refugee problems in the international community.

Until now, Japan has also taken measures to support resettlement of those recognized as Indochinese refugees and other refugees. To cope with various problems relating to refugees in the Asian region, the government reached a Cabinet understanding on the introduction of the third country resettlement system (“Concerning the Implementation of Pilot Cases relating to the Acceptance of Refugees by Resettlement to a Third Country”) on December 16, 2008.

In accordance with the content of the said Cabinet understanding and the “Detailed Measures for Implementing Pilot Cases relating to the Acceptance of Refugees by Resettlement to a Third Country” (Decision by the Liaison and Coordination Conference for Countermeasures for Refugees on December 19, 2008), relevant administrative authorities were to accept approximately 30 refugees from Myanmar, who were staying in the Mela Camp in Thailand, and support their resettlement, on an annual basis as a pilot case since FY 2010 in mutual cooperation. In the future, the pilot case will be investigated and reviewed from a variety of angles. Based on the investigation and review, such administrative authorities will further consider their future acceptance systems. In FY 2010, five families (27 people) came to Japan as the first group in 2010.

The Immigration Bureau mainly took charge of screening procedures for refugees to be accepted, and conducted an on-site interview survey at the camp by refugee inquirers in February 2011. The bureau will continue to make efforts for smooth acceptance of refugees by resettlement to third countries in cooperation with related organizations.
## Chapter 11 Addressing the Global Community

## Section 1 ☐ Treaties and International Conventions

## 1 Negotiations on Treaties

## (1) Addressing “Basic Policy on Comprehensive Economic Partnerships”

Under the “Basic Policy on Comprehensive Economic Partnerships” decided by the Cabinet on November 9, 2010, the Government of Japan will consider measures to address the issues relating to the movement of natural persons from abroad, such as nurses and certified care workers, on the basis of its efforts to promote the “employment and human resources strategies” described in its “New Growth Strategy”, and it will do so with due attention to future domestic demographic trends, the possible effect of such movement on employment in Japan, requests from other countries, as well as securing Japan’s economic growth and social stabilization.

Based on the “Basic Policy on Comprehensive Economic Partnerships”, a group to study “the movement of natural persons” was established under the Minister of State for National Policy. The Immigration Bureau participated in the group from the aspect of immigration control. As a result of the study the Cabinet decided on the extension of period of stay for Indonesian and Filipino candidates for nurse and certified care workers based on the Economic Partnership Agreement on March 11, 2011 $ ^{*} $ .

## (2) Major Actions for Negotiations on Conclusion of EPAs with other Countries

An Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) aims to promote liberalization and facilitation of trade between signatory nations, as well as coordination of policies, relaxation of regulations, and cooperation in various economic areas, including tariffs, trade in services, investment, intellectual property, and personal exchanges. The Immigration Bureau has been actively involved in negotiations on conclusion of each EPA with various countries: Singapore (effective date: November 2002 (the effective date is stated similarly hereinafter)), Mexico (April 2005), Malaysia (July 2006), Chile (September 2007), Thailand (November 2007), Indonesia (July 2008), the Philippines (December 2008), Switzerland (September 2009), Viet Nam (October 2009), India (signed in February 2011 and enforced in August 2011), and Peru (signed in May 2011) etc. In these negotiations, the bureau has offered explanations of the immigration control system in relation to the “movement of natural persons” etc.
As of May 2011, the Immigration Bureau has been mainly involved in negotiations on conclusion of the EPA with Australia.

## (3) Reports and Examinations in Accordance with Human Rights Treaties/Covenants

Japan is a signatory nation to various treaties, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). With regard to government reports on the status of implementation of those treaties, the Immigration Bureau is involved in the drafting of reports, review of governmental reports, and follow-up thereof from the perspective of immigration control administration. In this context, meetings to review the third governmental report on the CRC and the first governmental report on the CRC's Optional Protocols (concerning the involvement of children in armed conflict, the sale of children, etc.) were held in May 2010, and the Immigration Bureau was involved in the reviews relating to immigration control administration.

## 2 International Conventions

## (1) G8 Rome/Lyon Group Migration Experts Sub-Group Meeting

The Migration Experts Sub-Group Meeting, one of the sub groups of the G8 Rome/Lyon Group, which is a working experts' group to discuss measures against international terrorism and transnational organized crime at the G8 level, is discussing measures that the G8 members can take cooperatively in the area of illegal immigration and the forging or alteration of documents.

In 2010, three meetings in total were held in Canada. Officials from the Immigration Bureau attended all three meetings to exchange information and opinions with their counterparts in other countries.

## (2) Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Conference of Directors-General of Immigration

This meeting has been held every year since 2002 as a place where immigration officials from Asian and European countries can gather and discuss issues such as illegal entry and stay. It provides participants with opportunities to exchange and collect opinions and information that are useful in considering measures against issues such as illegal immigration. For this reason, the Immigration Bureau sends its officials to participate in opinion and information exchange of opinions and information. In 2010, the ninth meeting was held in Brussels (Belgium) to discuss policies toward legal and illegal immigrants.
## (3) Other International Conventions

In addition to the international meetings mentioned above, the Immigration Bureau sends officials to attend consultation meetings on bilateral economic partnership agreement, counterterrorism measures and on consular services etc., with the aim of actively explaining Japan's position and building cooperative relations with other countries. The bureau also sends officials to participate in meetings intended for information sharing and exchange of opinions, such as the International Air Transport Association (IATA)/Control Authorities Working Group (CAWG).

## Section 2 ☐ Holding of Seminars on Immigration Control

Since FY 1987, the Immigration Bureau has been inviting executive officers of the immigration control authorities of Asian countries and regions to seminars every year to exchange opinions and information on immigration control affairs in Asia. These constructive exchanges have helped the participating countries to effectively design and implement immigration control measures.

The 24th seminar was held in December 2010. The seminar was attended by the immigration authorities of 19 countries and regions in Southeast Asia, and the Pacific Rim, etc. (Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, China, China (Hong Kong), Indonesia, R.O. Korea, Laos, China (Macao), Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, the U.S., and Viet Nam), and by responsible persons from three international organizations: The European Union (EU), the IOM, and the UNHCR as observers. They actively exchanged opinions on the topics: “the developments over the past year in the immigration control administration of each participating country (region), “Effective utilization of various information for appropriate boarder inspection and residence examination”, and “countermeasures against illegal residents”.
## Chapter 12 Improvement of Public Relations and Administrative Services

## Section 1 ☑ Promotion of Public Relations

Recognizing that public relations and enlightenment activities inside and outside the country play a great role in the smooth implementation of immigration control, the Immigration Bureau has promoted more active public relations activities than ever before.

Main public relations activities include conducting press releases of statistics concerning immigration control administration such as the numbers of those entering or leaving Japan and of overstayers and posting and disseminating such information through websites of the Ministry of Justice. In addition, the Immigration Bureau publishes information including cases of special

Front page of the leaflet for the Illegal Work Prevention Campaign

Scene from the Illegal Work Prevention Campaign

Request for employers' associations to take countermeasures against illegal foreign workers by the National Police Agency, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare