Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
Minister of Justice was 6,879 in 2011, an increase by 520 from 2010.

Most of the ex-illegal foreign nationals who received special permission to stay in Japan had established close relationships such as marriage with Japanese nationals. Also in many cases they settled down in Japan in many respects.

Among the number of the special permission to stay in Japan despite reasons for deportation, the largest number in 2011 was overstay (5,569 accounting for 81.0%), followed by illegal entry and illegal landing, accounting for 12.0%. Overstay, illegal entry and illegal landing accounted for 93.0% of the total. (Table 32)

Table 32: Changes in the number of cases of special permission to stay in Japan by grounds for deportation

Year Grounds for Deportation	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Total	7,388	8,522	4,643	6,359	6,879
Overstay	5,586	6,521	3,508	4,939	5,569
Illegal entry / Illegal landing	1,457	1,640	897	1,044	827
Criminal offenses etc.	345	361	238	376	483

According to statistics by nationality (place of origin) in 2011, the largest number of foreign nationals who were granted special permission to stay in Japan came from China (1,146 accounting for 16.7%), followed by Korea (898 accounting for 13.1%). (Table 33)

Table 33: Changes in the number of cases of special permission to stay in Japan by nationality (place of origin) (cases)

Nationality (Place of Origin)	Year	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Total	7,388	8,522	4,643	6,359	6,879
China	1,304	1,669	857	1,098	1,146
Korea	1,106	1,416	663	815	898
Others	4,978	5,437	3,123	4,446	4,835

$ ^{*} $ "China" does not include Taiwan, Hong Kong or others.

## 4 Outline of Deportation of Foreign Nationals

The number of foreign nationals physically deported decreased by 4,503 (34.1%) from 2010 to 8,721 in 2011.

According to statistics by nationality (place of origin), the largest number of physically deported foreign nationals was from China (2,997 accounting for 34.4% of the total), followed by the Philippines (1,552 accounting for 17.8%), R.O. Korea (1,171 accounting for 13.4%), Thailand (479 accounting for 5.5%), and Viet Nam (370 accounting for 4.2%). (Table 34)
Table 34: Changes in the number of deportees by nationality (place of origin)

(People)

Nationality (Place of Origin)	Year	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Total	27,913	23,931	18,241	13,224	8,721
China	7,516	6,805	5,475	4,266	2,997
Philippines	5,128	4,385	3,194	2,439	1,552
R.O. Korea	3,798	2,873	2,423	1,715	1,171
Thailand	1,553	1,260	1,113	726	479
Viet Nam	1,018	1,023	709	569	370
Indonesia	1,452	1,596	885	502	248
Peru	518	495	674	384	222
Brazil	307	268	307	226	204
Sri Lanka	1,090	1,046	684	419	196
Iran	480	358	231	174	140
Others	5,053	3,822	2,546	1,804	1,142

$ ^{*} $ "China" does not include Taiwan, Hong Kong or others.

According to statistics by means of deportation, 96.1% of foreign nationals who had been issued a deportation order were deported at their own expense, while the number of foreign nationals who needed to be individually deported at national expense because of deportees financial problem or other reasons was 231 in 2011. (Table 35)

Table 35: Changes in the number of deporttees by means of deportation

Deportation

Table 35 Changes in the number of deportees by means of deportation

(People)

Year	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Measure of Deportation	27,913	23,931	18,241	13,224	8,721
Total	26,818	23,093	17,569	12,812	8,379
Voluntary departure	690	407	200	106	86
Deportation in accordance with Article 59	361	383	438	291	231
Deportation individually at the expense of the government	0	0	0	0	0
Deportation in group at the expense of the government	0	0	0	0	0
Others	0	0	0	0	0
Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons	44	48	34	15	25

(*1) Deportation in groups at the expense of the government includes cases where both the Japanese government and the deportee's homeland government bore the expenses.

$ ^{*2} $ "Others" are cases of deportation at the expense of the government of each deportees.

## (1) Deportation at the Expense of the Foreign National (Voluntary Departure)

Deportees who were deported at their own expense decreased by 4,433 (34.6%) from 2010 to 8,379 in 2011.

Around 95% of the deported foreign nationals are deported at their own expense every year as soon as requirements for deportation, such as possessing a passport, a flight ticket, and enough money for travel costs are fulfilled.
For those who do not fulfill requirements for deportation, the Immigration Bureau not only enforces deportation procedures but also instructs the deportee to make contact with relevant people in Japan or in their home countries in order to ask financial assistance for the deportation. In cases where deportees do not possess a passport, the Immigration Bureau asks foreign missions in Japan for the early issue of a passport for the deportee. (Table 36)

Table 36: Changes in the number of deportees by voluntary departure by nationality (place of origin)

(People)

Nationality (Place of Origin)	Year	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Total	26,818	23,093	17,569	12,812	8,379
China	7,274	6,686	5,390	4,232	2,972
Philippines	4,988	4,242	3,096	2,368	1,494
R.O. Korea	3,763	2,836	2,402	1,704	1,158
Thailand	1,503	1,214	1,084	717	473
Viet Nam	1,011	1,008	695	564	363
Indonesia	1,438	1,549	878	496	244
Peru	482	460	617	328	198
Sri Lanka	1,021	986	667	404	186
Brazil	252	225	231	172	139
Iran	289	279	177	142	123
Others	4,797	3,608	2,332	1,685	1,029

$ ^{*} $ "China" does not include Taiwan, Hong Kong or others.

## (2) Deportation at the Expense of the Government of Japan

As unlawful foreign residents tend to stay longer period than if used to be and tend to more diverse lifestyles and backgrounds, an increasing number of foreign nationals who have been issued with a deportation order suffer from illness, refuse deportation for various reasons, or remain in detention for a long period of time because they cannot afford travel expenses. Of these foreign nationals, the number of those deported at national expense in consideration of individual circumstances decreased by 60 (20.6%) from 291 in 2010 to 231 in 2011.

In addition, illegal Chinese entrants detected at the border as organized stowaways were deported as a group in the past. However, collective deportation has not been conducted since 2004 due to a significant decrease in the number of organized stowaways detected.

## (3) Deportation at the Expense of and under the Responsibility of Carriers

Any carrier that transported a foreign national who is issued with a deportation order must send him/her back at their own expense and under their own responsibility (the deportation specified in Article 59 of the Immigration Control Act) under certain conditions*. The number of foreign nationals deported in this way in 2011 was 86, having decreased by 20 (18.9%) from 2010. (Table 35)
## 5 Departure Orders

## (1) Outline

The departure order system was established by the amendment of the Immigration Control Act in 2004 for the purpose of encouraging illegal foreign residents to appear at immigration offices voluntarily. It entered into force on December 2 of the same year. Under the system, if an overstayer who appears at an immigration office voluntarily satisfies certain requirements, he/she may depart from Japan without being detained in accordance with simple procedures. (Chart 18) The landing denial period for overstayers who are deported in accordance with regular deportation procedures is five years or ten years, while the landing denial period for those who depart from Japan under a departure order is shortened to one year to encourage quick departure.

## (2) Investigation into Violations

The number of foreign nationals who were handed over from immigration control officers to immigration inspectors through the departure order procedures was 4,501 in 2011, accounting for 21.8% of the total number of foreign nationals violating the Immigration Control Act.

### A. The Number of Foreign Nationals Ordered to Depart by Nationality (Place of Origin)

According to statistics by nationality (place of origin), the largest number was from China (2,247 accounting for 49.9% of the total), followed by R.O. Korea (586 accounting for 13.0%), the Philippines (458 accounting for 10.2%), Viet Nam (188 accounting for 4.2%), and Indonesia (145 accounting for 3.2%), and these top five countries account for 80.5% of the total. (Table 37)

Table 37: Number of foreign nationals handed over under a departure order by nationality (place of origin) (2011)

(People)

Nationality (Place of Origin)	Article	Total	24-( ii )-3	24-( iv )-(b)	24-( vi )	24-( vi )-2	24-( vii )
Total	4,501	5	4,320	60	1	115
China	2,247	4	2,204	26	0	13
R.O. Korea	586	0	582	1	0	3
Philippines	458	0	412	11	0	35
Viet Nam	188	0	186	0	0	2
Indonesia	145	0	133	9	1	2
Thailand	138	0	126	6	0	6
Sri Lanka	133	0	125	1	0	7
Mongolia	116	0	109	3	0	4
Peru	62	0	54	0	0	8
Malaysia	48	0	46	0	0	2
Others	380	1	343	3	0	33

$ ^{*} $ "China" does not include Taiwan, Hong Kong or others.

### B. The Number of Foreign Nationals Ordered to Depart by Applied Articles

According to statistics by applied articles, the number of suspects violating Article 24, item (iv), (b) of the Immigration Control Act was the largest at 4,320, accounting for 96.0% of the total. This was followed by 115 suspects violating Article 24, item (vii) of the Act, and 60 suspects violating Article 24, item (vi) of the Act.
## (3) Examination

### A. Receipt and Findings of Cases

The number of cases of departure orders received in 2011 was 4,501, accounting for 20.9% of the total number of violations received. As those subject to a departure order and wishing to depart from Japan voluntarily appear at a regional immigration bureau, they are promptly processed after being handed over by immigration control officers.

### B. Issuance of a Written Departure Order

The number of foreign nationals who were recognized as subject to a departure order and to whom a written departure order was issued was 4,501 in 2011.

According to statistics by nationality (place of origin), the largest number was from China (2,252 accounting for 50.0% of the total), followed by Korea (553 accounting for 12.3%), the Philippines (426 accounting for 9.5%), Viet Nam (179 accounting for 4.0%) and Indonesia (138 accounting for 3.1%) and the top five countries account for 78.8% of the total. (Table 38)

Table 38: Changes in the number of issuance of written departure orders by nationality (place of origin)

(Cases)

Nationality (Place of Origin)	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Total	9,691	8,477	9,041	5,186	4,501
China	3,153	3,136	3,200	2,220	2,252
Korea	1,616	1,142	885	728	582
Philippines	1,486	1,141	1,329	754	456
Viet Nam	359	472	603	189	189
Indonesia	623	590	707	183	146
Thailand	313	222	288	229	139
Sri Lanka	312	238	327	151	136
Mongolia	210	153	126	82	113
Peru	239	212	367	93	61
Malaysia	196	123	139	67	49
Others	1,184	1,048	1,070	490	378

$ ^{*} $ "China" does not include Taiwan, Hong Kong or others.

## (4) Confirmation of Departure

Foreign nationals who are recognized as subject to a departure order are required, similarly to foreign nationals departing within the period of stay, to submit one copy of an embarkation/disembarkation (ED) card to the immigration inspector to receive a seal of departure, and to submit their own written departure order.
## Chapter 3 Recognition of Refugee Status

Due to the recognition that it is important for Japan to fulfill its obligations in the international community by accepting refugees, Japan became a signatory to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees in 1981 (“Convention”) and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees in 1982 (“Protocol”), (hereinafter, “Convention” and “Protocol” are referred to together as “Convention etc.”) and as a result, also established a system for recognition of refugee status*. In recent years, however, the number of foreign nationals seeking refugee status from Japan has been increasing, as the world is rapidly changing due to regional conflicts occurring around the world and the instability of a number of countries. Today, Japanese society pays more attention to refugee-related issues than before.

Refugee Travel Document

Given these circumstances, Japan intends to review the refugee

recognition system from the perspective of proper and prompt protection of refugees through fairer procedures. The Act to Amend the Immigration Control Act, etc. was enforced on May 16, 2005, which included establishment of the system for permitting provisional stay and the refugee examination counselors system. The Act has been in force since May 16, 2005.

The Immigration Bureau has further improved and strengthened its organizational structure and investigation system, as well as properly implementing the new refugee recognition system, in order to handle applications for refugee status quickly and appropriately.
# Section 1 ◆ Application for Refugee Status and Findings

## 1 Application for Refugee Status

The total number of those who applied for recognition of refugee status in 2011 was 1,867, an increase by 665 from 2010, marking the record high at approximately 1.6 times of the previous year’s level. (Table 39)

Table 39: Changes in the number of refugee applicants

(Cases)

2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Applied	816	1,599	1,388	1,202	1,867

The number of nationalities of applicants was 57, and the country from which the largest number of applicants came was Myanmar (491 persons), followed by Nepal (251 persons), Turkey (234 persons), Sri Lanka (224 persons), and Pakistan (169 persons).

Applicants consisted of 1,159 legal residents (62.1%) and 708 illegal foreign residents (37.9%) at the time of submitting their applications. Those foreign nationals without lawful status consisted of those who appeared at an immigration office voluntarily to submit their application, standing at 168 persons (23.7%) and those who applied after a detention order or deportation order was issued, standing at 540 persons (76.3%).

About 30% of the total applicants, standing at 540 persons, had applied for recognition of refugee status in the past.

## 2 Findings of Applications for Refugee Status

The total number of those whose application for recognition of refugee status was processed in 2011 increased by 664 to 2,119, approximately 1.5 times of the previous year’s level. The number of applicants who were recognized as refugees was 7, while the number of applicants who were not recognized was 2,002. The number of those who withdrew their applications and others was 110. (Table 40)

Table 40: Changes in the number of refugee findings

2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Findings	544	918	1,848	1,455	2,119

Further, the immigration administration should be allowed to make exceptional arrangements within its authority for applicants who have special extenuating circumstances, even if they have not been recognized as refugees who fall under the definitions of refugees specified in the Convention and the Protocol. For example, if an applicant, who is denied recognition of refugee status, is unable to return to his/her home country due to situational problems in his/her country or has some other special reason requiring that he/she stay in Japan, special arrangements may be made flexibly on a case-by-case basis, taking the situation into consideration within the Japanese immigration control framework. In 2011, 248 applicants were allowed to stay in Japan. (Table 41)
Table 41: Changes in the number of protected as refugees etc.

(Cases)

1978 ~ 2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Refugee status	Recognized as a refugee	410	41	57	30	39	21
Refugees for resettlement	11,319	27	18
Others	434	88	360	501	363	248
Total	12,163	129	417	531	429	287

(note 1) The number of persons recognized as refugees includes those who were rejected to be recognized as refugees in the primary examination, but were recognized as the result of filing of an objection.

(note 2) The number of the “refugees for resettlement” consists of (1) so-called “boat people” who evacuated from Indo-China countries during 1970s through 1980s and their family/relatives (their legal protection was based on the approvals of Cabinet on April 28, 1978, and June 17, 1980), and (2) the accepted Myanmar refugees who had been protected temporarily in Thailand as a pilot case of resettlement to a third country which started in 2010. Thus, the numbers of the “refugees for resettlement” for before 2006 show the types of people who fall into (1) category. Likewise, the number of the “refugees for resettlement” after 2010 indicates the types of people who fall into (2) category.

(note 3) The number of others includes those who rejected to be recognized as refugees in the primary examination but later found to have enough grounds for being granted special permission to stay in Japan by the Minister of Justice, in accordance with the Article 61-2-2(2) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act etc.

## 3 Implementation of the System of Permission for Provisional Stay

In 2011, the number of those who were granted permission for provisional stay $ ^{*} $ was 71, an increase by 6 from the previous year.

The number of those who were examined whether to be granted permission for provisional stay was 689. Major reasons for decisions not to grant permission are as follows $ ^{**} $ :

○Applicants applied for recognition of refugee status after six months from the date of landing in Japan (in the case of those for whom grounds for being a refugee have arisen during their stay in Japan, the date such fact became known to them): 455 persons

○Applicants had received a deportation order in the past: 337 persons
Chart 21: Patterns and Procedures for Application for Recognition of Refugee Status

Requirements of permission for provisional stay

(1) There is no probable cause to suspect that the applicant falls under any of the reasons for deportation.

(2) The applicant has applied for permission within six months from the date of landing in Japan (if any event that makes a foreign resident a refugee occurs during stay in Japan, the date when the resident knows the fact).

(3) The applicant came to Japan directly from a region where there is a fear of persecution.

(4) The applicant has never been sentenced to imprisonment with or without work for a certain criminal offense under the criminal law, etc. after entering Japan.

(5) A deportation order has not been issued against the applicant.

(6) There is no probable cause to suspect that the applicant may flee from the country.

## Section 2 ◆ Filing of Objections

## 1 Filing of Objections

The total number of objections filed by applicants who were denied refugee status (hereinafter, referred to as “Denial of Recognition of Refugee Status”) in 2011 was 1,719, increased by 860 from a year earlier (approximately 2.0 times more). (Table 42)
## 2 Finding of Objections

Among the objections filed by applicants who failed to obtain refugee status, 880 of them were handled in 2011, having increased by 429 (approximately 2.0 times more) from a year earlier. According to the statistics, 14 objections were found to be with reasonable grounds (13 in the previous year), 635 objections were found without reasonable grounds (325 previous year), and 231 objections were withdrawn by the foreign nationals who filed objections (113 in the previous year). (Table 42)

Table 42 Changes in the number of filings of objections and decisions of the Minister of Justice

Year Division	1982 ~ 2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	Total
Not recognized as a refugee	2,773	389	446	791	1,703	1,336	2,002	9,440
Filing of objection	1,862	340	362	429	1,156	859	1,719	6,727
Decision	With reason	32	12	4	17	8	13	14	100
Without reason	1,425	127	183	300	230	325	635	3,225
Withdrawn	295	33	34	34	70	113	231	810

(*) As the procedure of “filing of an objection” was established by the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, as amended, that was implemented on May 16, 2005, the application of objection made prior to the implementation of said Act was deemed to be replaced by “filing of an objection” after the implementation.

## Section 3 ☐ Purpose of the Refugee Examination Counselors System and its Implementation

The Refugee Examination Counselors System was started in May 2005 in order to ensure the equity and neutrality of objection filing procedures. This procedure made it mandatory for the Minister of Justice to hear the opinions of refugee examination counselors when making decisions on objections filed against denial of refugee status.

The Act provides that refugee examination counselors shall be appointed from among persons of reputable character who are capable of making fair judgments on the objection filed in connection with denial of refugee status and who have exceptional academic background in law or current international affairs. They are appointed by the Minister of Justice based on recommendations from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Japan Federation of Bar Associations, Refugee Assistance Headquarters, etc.

The Act provides that the Minister of Justice must hear the opinions of refugee examination counselors on all the cases in which an objection has been filed. Prior to this process, a process of oral statement of opinions by a petitioner, etc. in which the petitioner, etc. states his/her opinions, or a process of questions in which a refugee inquirer or a refugee examination counselor questions the petitioner, is implemented.

In 2011, the number of oral statements of opinion and processes of questions was 644.

After the oral statement of opinions and the process of questions, refugee examination counselors exchange opinions with the other refugee examination counselors, then draw up a written opinion and submit it to the Minister of Justice.

Cases in which written opinions were presented by refugee examination counselors numbered 651 in 2011.

There have been no cases in which the Minister of Justice has made a disposition not in confor-
mity with the opinions of the refugee examination counselors (should they differ in opinion, then the opinions of the majority of the counselors prevail).

## Section 4 ◆ Landing Permission for Temporary Refuge

Landing permission for temporary refuge is granted by the immigration inspector under the prescribed procedures when it is considered that foreign nationals on board a ship, etc. may possibly fall under the category of refugees, and that it is reasonable to permit them to land temporarily.

Looking at applications made by persons other than boat people, 149 applications were made in the past five years (from 2007 until 2011), and 14 applications were granted such permission.