judged as unlawful.

[Tokyo High Court Judgment on January 26, 2012]

## Court case 4 [Existence or nonexistence of the immigration inspector’s obligation to explain about the refugee recognition system in deportation procedures]

The plaintiff points out that when the relevant immigration inspector found that the suspect fell into the category of a foreign national subject to deportation, he/she had an obligation to explain about the special permission to stay in Japan and the relation between deportation procedures and refugee applications. However, Article 47, paragraph (4) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act stipulates that an immigration inspector shall notify the suspect, who has been found to fall into the category of a foreign national subject to deportation, that the suspect may request a hearing, but there are no express provisions to require an immigration inspector to make a suggestion on the special permission to stay in Japan or procedures for refugee applications in such cases. Needless to say, when a foreign national who has grounds for deportation falls into the category of a refugee, it is against the non-refoulement principle and thus is not permissible to send such foreign national back to his/her country of nationality. Also in light of the fact that Japan is obliged to protect refugees under the Refugee Convention, there may be a room to construe that if there are any special circumstances such as when the suspect makes statement hinting that he/she is a refugee, legal obligation to make a suggestion on the outline of Japan’s refugee recognition system would arise. Nevertheless, the plaintiff had not made any statement hinting that he/she is a refugee to the immigration inspector at the Osaka Regional Immigration Bureau, until he/she received the disposition of the issuance of a deportation order in this case, and the relevant immigration inspector at the Osaka Regional Immigration Bureau is not found to have had the obligation to explain about the refugee recognition system in this case.

[Osaka District Court Judgment on January 19, 2012]

## Court case 5 [Assessment of the wrongfulness of the furtherance of illegal work]

As of MMDD, 2010, when the restaurant in this case was detected, the plaintiff had a total of 18 employees including “A” work illegally at the restaurant as hostesses or part-timers for washing dishes. Regarding seven of these employees who stayed in Japan with the status of residence of “Temporary Visitor,” the plaintiff hired them simply for solving a labor shortage, while clearly understanding that these employees’ working at the restaurant fell into the category of illegal work. Also regarding the other 11 employees including “A” who stayed in Japan with other statuses of residence, when the plaintiff checked whether they had proper statuses of residence, he/she could have been fully aware of the probability that these employees’ working at the restaurant fell into the category of activities other than those permitted by the statuses of residence granted thereto. Given these facts, the plaintiff is found to have hired these employees and had them work at the restaurant, while having recognized them being engaged in illegal work in Japan. Then, the plaintiff is inevitable.