the ministerial ordinance for landing criteria, and the application for landing relating to the trainees, etc., would not now be approved. The Director of the Osaka Regional Immigration Bureau, which the appellant regards as the competent administrative agency, considered the foregoing circumstances and gave notice of recognizing misconduct to the appellant. However, it cannot be interpreted that such notice falls under an administrative disposition that gives rise to legal effect on the appellant. The recognition of misconduct should be interpreted as advance recognition by the Director of the Osaka Regional Immigration Bureau of facts falling under requirements prescribed in the foregoing ministerial ordinance for landing examination of foreigners, and as a warning to the appellant who would suffer a disadvantage thereby. However, such recognition cannot be regarded as a binding legal constraint, even if the appellant cannot accept trainees for three years and would suffer a disadvantage.

【Osaka High Court Judgment on June 26, 2008】

## Court case 3

Article 48, paragraph (5) and Article 10, paragraph (4) of the Immigration Control Act provide that a suspect may cause one of his/her family members or acquaintances to attend oral proceedings by obtaining the permission of the Special Inquiry Officer. The plaintiff asserts that, although the plaintiff could speak daily conversational Japanese, he could not well understand the meanings of idioms or technical terms and differences of nuance of expression, that, therefore, oral proceedings by the Special Inquiry Officer of Nagoya Regional Immigration Bureau that were implemented prior to the decision, and the disposition of issuing the written order, for this case should have caused X, who was well acquainted with the plaintiff himself and his Japanese wife X, to attend, however, such proceedings were implemented without such attendance, and that such proceedings have procedural illegality in such point.

However, Article 48, paragraph (5) and Article 10, paragraph (4) of the Act do not provide that proceedings in oral procedure must be implemented with an attendant without fail, but subject such proceedings to the permission of the Special Inquiry Officer. As it can be interpreted that the Special Inquiry Officer may not give permission if he/she considers that the presence of an attendant gives rise to any obstacle in the oral proceedings, a fact that the oral proceedings relating to the plaintiff were implemented without the attendance of X does not immediately constitute violation of the Immigration Control Act.

Further, as the plaintiff did not specifically argue in the oral proceedings that he fell under Article 24, item (iv) (b) and (i) of the Act, and as the assertion that there existed special circumstances to permit residence to the plaintiff specifically was fully stated in the record of statement by the plaintiff dated May XX, 2006 prepared by an immigration security officer of Nagoya Regional Immigration Bureau, (*snip*), it cannot be said that the non-attendance of X at the oral proceedings relating to the plaintiff constitutes a cause of illegality in the procedure for the decision, and the disposition of issuing the written order, for this case.