Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
Table 36: Changes in the number of deportees by voluntary departure by nationality (place of origin)

(People)

YearNationality(Place of Origin)	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Total	31,811	31,911	26,818	23,093	17,569
China	10,621	9,831	7,274	6,686	5,390
Philippines	4,810	5,340	4,988	4,242	3,096
R.O. Korea	3,912	4,155	3,763	2,836	2,402
Thailand	1,865	1,766	1,503	1,214	1,084
Indonesia	1,224	1,663	1,438	1,549	878
Viet Nam	558	861	1,011	1,008	695
Sri Lanka	766	1,089	1,021	986	667
Peru	520	629	482	460	617
Bangladesh	1,258	1,068	831	610	368
Brazil	191	186	252	225	231
Others	6,086	5,323	4,255	3,277	2,141

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

## (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 2009 was 200, having decreased by 207 (50.9%) from 2008. (Table 35)

*(Note) Carriers are, similarly to captains of ships, in a position to govern their crew and passengers, and imposed the prescribed responsibilities and duties under the Immigration Control Act. Among these duties, they are obligated to send foreign nationals falling under certain requirements to the area outside Japan promptly under their own responsibility and at their own expense (Article 59 of the Act).

For example, persons who are denied landing and issued with a deportation order but fail to leave, or who have landed with special permission for landing but stay longer than the authorized period of stay, fall under the foregoing category.

## 5 Departure Orders

## (1) Outline

The departure order system was newly established by the amendment of the Immigration Control Act of 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. The landing denial period for overstayers who are deported in accordance with deportation procedures is five years, while the landing denial period for those who depart from Japan under a departure order is shortened to one year.

## (2) Investigation of Violations

The number of foreign nationals who were handed over from immigration control officers to immigration inspectors through the departure order procedures was 8,958 in 2009, accounting for 27.4% 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 (3,153 accounting for 35.2% of the total), followed by the Philippines (1,322 accounting for 14.8%), R.O. Korea (880 accounting for 9.8%), Indonesia (701 accounting for 7.8%), and Viet Nam (596 accounting for 6.7%), and these top five countries account for 74.3% of the total. (Table 37)

Table 37: Number of foreign nationals handed over under a departure order by nationality (place of origin) (2009)

Article Nationality (Place of Origin)	Total	24-(ii)-3	24-(iv)-(b)	24-(vi)	24-(vi)-2	24-(vii)
Total	8,958	0	8,480	191	1	286
China	3,153	0	3,107	39	0	7
Philippines	1,322	0	1,169	40	1	112
R.O. Korea	880	0	854	5	0	21
Indonesia	701	0	640	50	0	11
Viet Nam	596	0	577	0	0	19
Peru	367	0	318	0	0	49
Sri Lanka	324	0	312	4	0	8
Thailand	284	0	249	24	0	11
Nepal	201	0	193	3	0	5
Malaysia	138	0	138	0	0	0
Others	992	0	923	26	0	43

$ ^{*} $ "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, (4) (b) of the Immigration Control Act was the largest at 8,480, accounting for 94.7% of the total. This was followed by 286 suspects violating Article 24, (7) of said Act, and 191 suspects violating Article 24, (6) of said Act.

## (3) Examination

### A. Receipt and Findings of Cases

The number of cases of departure orders received in 2009 increased to 8,958, accounting for 27.4% 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 9,041 in 2009.

According to statistics by nationality (place of origin), the largest number was from China (3,200 accounting for 35.4% of the total), followed by the Philippines (1,329 accounting for 14.7%), and North and South Korea (885 accounting for 10.0%), and the top five countries account for 74.4% of the total. (Table 38)
Table 38: Changes in the number of issuance of written departure orders by nationality (place of origin)

(Cases)

YearNationality(Place of Origin)	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Total	12,227	11,100	9,691	8,477	9,041
China	3,777	3,516	3,153	3,136	3,200
Philippines	1,742	1,582	1,486	1,141	1,329
Korea	2,206	1,992	1,616	1,142	885
Indonesia	670	701	623	590	707
Viet Nam	304	343	359	472	603
Peru	254	250	239	212	367
Sri Lanka	295	349	312	238	327
Thailand	507	429	313	222	288
Nepal	165	212	133	131	200
Malaysia	324	214	196	123	139
Others	1,983	1,512	1,261	1,070	996

$ ^{*} $ "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 card (hereinafter referred to as “ED card”) to the immigration inspector to receive a seal of departure, and to submit their own written departure order.
# Recognition of Refugee Status

Chapter 3

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 (hereinafter referred to as the “Convention”) and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees in 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the “Protocol”), and as a result, also established a system for recognition of refugee status (Note). 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 people pay more attention to refugee-related issues than before.

In light of these circumstances, Japan intends to review the refugee recognition system from the perspective of proper and prompt protection of refugees through fairer procedures. The revised Immigration Control Act was enforced on May 16, 2005, which

Refugee Travel Document

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.

(Note) Japan became a signatory to the Convention on October 3, 1981 and to the Protocol on January 1, 1982. The Convention and the Protocol came into effect in Japan on January 1, 1982.

## 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 2009 was 1,388, a decrease by 211 from 2008, though it remained at a previous year’s high level. (Table 39)
Table 39: Changes in the number of refugee applicants

(Cases)

Year Division	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Applied	384	954	816	1,599	1,388

The number of nationalities of applicants was 47, and the country from which the largest number of applicants came was Myanmar (568 persons), followed by Sri Lanka (234 persons), Turkey (94 persons), Pakistan (92 persons), and India (59 persons).

Applicants consisted of 521 legal residents (37.5%) and 867 illegal residents (62.5%) at the time of submitting their applications. Those illegal residents consisted of those who appeared at an immigration office voluntarily to submit their application, standing at 317 persons (36.6%) and those who applied after a detention order or deportation order was issued, standing at 550 persons (63.4%).

About 20% of the total applicants, standing at 324 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 2009 was 1,848, an increase by 930 (almost 100%) from the previous year. The number of applicants who were recognized as refugees was 22, while the number of applicants who were not recognized was 1,703. The number of those who withdrew their applications and others was 123. (Table 40)

Table 40: Changes in the number of refugee findings

(Cases)

Year Division	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Findings	312	459	544	918	1,848

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 2009, 501 applicants were allowed to stay in Japan, which was the largest number in the past. (Table 41)

Table 41: Changes in the number of protected refugees

(Cases)

Year Division	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Recognized as a refugee	46	34	41	57	30
Humanitarian permission to stay	97	53	88	360	501
Total	143	87	129	417	531

$ ^{*} $ The number of recognized persons includes those who were rejected to be recognized as refugees, but were recognized as the result of filing of an objection.
## 3 Implementation of the System for Permitting Provisional Stay

The number of those who were granted permission for provisional stay $ ^{*} $ was 72, increased by 15 from the previous year.

The number of those who were examined whether to be granted permission for provisional stay was 1,028. 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): 796 persons

○Applicants had received a deportation order in the past: 476 persons

$ ^{*} $ (Note 1): “Permission for provisional stay” aims to ensure that the legal status of illegal residents who are taking application procedures for recognition of refugee status is stabilized promptly. This system aims to give permission for permission for provisional stay in Japan to foreign nationals who do not have any status of residence, including those illegal residents, if they apply for recognition of refugee status, except those who fall under the requirements specified in Paragraph 1, Article 61-2-4 of the Immigration Control Act.

** (Note 2): If one applicant falls under several reasons for refusal of permission, all reasons are included.
Chart 20: 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 was 4,149 during the period from 1982, the year in which the refugee recognition system was established, through to the end of 2009.

Looking at the change from 2005 to 2009, the number of filings of objections has consistently been increasing
In 2009, the number of oral statements of opinion and processes of questions was 317.

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 331 in 2009.

There have been no cases in which the Minister of Justice has made a disposition not in conformity 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, 89 applications were made in the past five years (from 2005 until 2009), and 4 applications were granted such permission.
# Promotion of Measures against Trafficking in Persons and Proper Protection of Foreign DV Victims

## Section 1 ◆ Promotion of Measures against Trafficking in Persons

## 1 Number of Victims of Trafficking in Persons and their Cases in 2009

Trafficking in persons is a grave abuse of human rights and a prompt and accurate response is called for from a humane perspective. This is because trafficking in persons causes serious spiritual and bodily pain to its victims, particularly to women and children, and the damage it causes is difficult to repair. The authorities concerned address this issue through the “Japan’s Action Plan of Measures to Combat Trafficking in Persons” decided in the Inter-Ministerial Liaison Committee Regarding Measures to Combat Trafficking in Persons in December 2004.

The number of foreign nationals who took procedures for protection as victims of trafficking in persons (including support for returning their home countries) was 20 (all of them were female) in 2009. According to nationality, the Philippines had 10 (6 in the previous year), followed by Thailand with 8 victims (18 in the previous year), China with 1 (none in the previous year), and China (Hong Kong) with 1 (none in the previous year).

Of the 20 victims, 9 (11 in the previous year) were legal residents and 11 were those who had violated the Immigration Control Act such as overstayers (17 in the previous year). Special permission to stay was issued to all the victims who had violated the Immigration Control Act. (Table 43)

The number of victims has consistently been decreasing since 2005, when the Immigration Bureau started the survey. It is considered that the reason for such a decrease is due to the fact that the Government as a whole is taking countermeasures against trafficking in persons based on the “Action Plan for Countermeasures against Trafficking in Persons” which was decided in December 2004, and that countermeasures for preventing trafficking in persons, including implementation of strict landing examination, has achieved a certain effect. (Table 44)

On the other hand, as a trend in recent years, there have been few typical cases in which those committing human trafficking forcibly keep the passports of victims or victims are placed under restraint. Rather, there have been an increasing number of cases in which victims are controlled under a sophisticated and malicious system to prevent them from escaping or notifying, to place them under mental pressure before they realize that they are victims, or to help them enter Japan with a status of residence that allows to engage in work by arranging a fake marriage, etc. It is considered that suffering from human trafficking has become more difficult to uncover because the ways that those committing human trafficking use have become diverse. Therefore, the Immigration Bureau plans to strengthen countermeasures against human trafficking based on the “Japan’s 2009 Action Plan to Combat Trafficking in Persons” formulated in December 2009 and make efforts to investigate the real situation in the days ahead.
Table 43: Number of victims of trafficking in persons (2009)

(People)

BreakdownNationality(Place of Origin)	Recognized as a victim of trafficking in persons	Total
Legal resident	Violators of the Immigration Control Act (Special Permission to Stay in Japan)
Philippines	6	4 (4)	10
Thailand	2	6 (6)	8
China	0	1 (1)	1
China (Hong Kong)	1	0 (0)	1
Total	9	11 (11)	20

$ ^{*1} $ "China" does not include Taiwan, Hong Kong or others.

(*2) The status of residence of 9 legitimate residents consists of 6 persons who are “Spouse or Child of Japanese National”, 3 persons who are “Temporary Visitor”.

The manner of violation of 11 persons with special permission to stay in Japan consists of 7 persons who made Illegal Entry, and 4 persons with Overstay (Overstay from "Temporary Visitor").

Table 44: Changes in the number of victims of trafficking in persons

Year	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Breakdown
Total	115	47	40	28	20
Legal resident	68	20	27	11	9
Violators of the Immigration Control Act (Special permission to stay in Japan)	47 (47)	27 (27)	13 (13)	17 (17)	11 (11)

## 2 Number of Foreign Nationals Deported for Committing Trafficking in Persons During 2009

Persons who were deported as those committing trafficking in persons in 2009 were all female, standing at 6 (9 in the previous year), and their countries of origin were Thailand (3) and China (Taiwan) (3).

Countries of origin of those who were deported were Indonesia (3), Thailand (2), China (Taiwan) (2), China (1) and R.O.Korea (1) in 2008.

(Note) By the amendment to the Immigration Control Act in 2005, a “person who committed, suggested or assisted trafficking in persons” was made a subject of deportation (Article 24, item (4), (c)).

## Section 2 ♦ Proper Protection of Foreign DV Victims

## 1 Outline

Violence by a spouse (DV) is a serious infringement against human rights that include an act that may constitute a crime. Similarly to cases of trafficking in persons, a prompt and accurate response is required from a humanitarian point of view.

The Immigration Bureau considers that DV is a serious infringement against human rights and responds to foreign nationals who are DV victims properly by ensuring their physical protection through coordination with concerned agencies, by, if application for extension of the period of stay or for change of status of residence is made by victims, permitting such applications or by, if they are overstaying on account of DV, giving special permission of residence.

Also, based on the act of partial amendment to the “Act for Prevention of Violence from Spouse and Protection of Victims” that was enforced in January 2008 and the “Basic Policy concerning Measures for Violence from Spouse and Protection of Victims” that was prepared in line with the enforcement of said Act, a manual for
specifying treatment, etc., in case of recognizing foreign nationals suffering from DV was prepared to promote further protection of victims and distributed to regional immigration bureaus, and notification was made to the effect that bureaus should make a prompt report if they recognized a case of DV.

## 2 Number of Recognized Foreign DV Victims in 2009

The Immigration Bureau puts an emphasis on the protection of victims and treats them properly from a humanitarian point of view by ensuring coordination with concerned agencies, and, in the process of residence examination or deportation procedure, by giving due and careful consideration to the will and position of the victims and by considering individual circumstances. The number of foreign DV victims who were recognized in the process of application for extension of period of stay or deportation procedure during 2009 was 67. Among them, 51 persons were granted permission for extension of period of stay, change of status of residence, or permanent residence, 6 persons were granted special permission for stay due to violation of the Immigration Control Act, 5 persons were in the process of other applications, and 5 persons only asked for advice. (Table 45)

Table 45: Number of recognized foreign DV victims (2009)

(People)

Division Nationality	Permission for extension of period of stay and so forth	Deportation Procedures	Consult	Total
Philippines	32	8	2	42
China	6	2	8
Indonesia	3	3
Thailand	2	2
R.O. Korea	2	2
Brazil	2	2
Peru	1	1	2
Cote d'Ivoire	1	1
Laos	1	1
Colombia	1	1
Bolivia	1	1
New Zealand	1	1
Lithuania	1	1
Total	52	10	5	67

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