Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
## (4) Special Permission to Stay in Japan

The number of foreign nationals who received special permission to stay in Japan from the Minister of Justice in 2012 was 5,336, a decline of 1,543 (22.4%) from 2011.

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

Of the foreign nationals with special permission to stay in Japan despite coming under the grounds for deportation, the grounds for the largest number in 2012 was overstaying (4,304 accounting for 80.7%), followed by illegal entry and illegal landing, jointly accounting for 9.2%. Overstaying, illegal entry and illegal landing accounted for 89.9% of the total. (Table 38)

Table 38 Changes in the number of cases of special permission to stay in Japan by grounds for deportation

Year Grounds for Deportation	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Total	8,522	4,643	6,359	6,879	5,336
Overstay	6,521	3,508	4,939	5,569	4,304
Illegal entry/Illegal landing	1,640	897	1,044	827	491
Criminal offenses etc.	361	238	376	483	541

According to statistics by nationality/region in 2012, the largest number of foreign nationals who were granted special permission to stay in Japan came from China (809 accounting for 15.2%), followed by Korea (693 accounting for 13.0%). (Table 39)

Table 39 Changes in the number of cases of special permission to stay in Japan by nationality/region

Year	Nationality/region	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Total	8,522	4,643	6,359	6,879	5,336
China	1,669	857	1,098	1,146	809
Korea	1,416	663	815	898	693
Others	5,437	3,123	4,446	4,835	3,834

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

## 5 Outline of Deportation of Foreign Nationals

The number of deported foreign nationals decreased by 2,262 (25.9%) from 2011 to 6,459 in 2012.

According to statistics by nationality/region, the largest number of deported foreign nationals was from China (2,389 accounting for 37.0% of the total), followed by the Philippines (972 accounting for 15.0%), R.O. Korea (964 accounting for 14.9%), Viet Nam (340 accounting for 5.3%), and Thailand (317 accounting for 4.9%). (Table 40)
Table 40 Changes in the number of deportees by nationality/region

(People)

Year	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Nationality/region
Total	23,931	18,241	13,224	8,721	6,459
China	6,805	5,475	4,266	2,997	2,389
Philippines	4,385	3,194	2,439	1,552	972
R.O.Korea	2,873	2,423	1,715	1,171	964
Viet Nam	1,023	709	569	370	340
Thailand	1,260	1,113	726	479	317
Indonesia	1,596	885	502	248	164
Brazil	268	307	226	204	143
Sri Lanka	1,046	684	419	196	141
Peru	495	674	384	222	137
Iran	358	231	174	140	126
Others	3,822	2,546	1,804	1,142	766

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

Accordingly to statistics by means of deportation, 95.5% of foreign nationals who had been issued with 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 the deportees' financial problems or other reasons was 191 (3.0%) in 2012.

The number of foreign nationals who were deported at their own expense normally remains at around 95% of the total number of deportees. (Table 41)

Deportation

Table 41 Changes in the number of deportees by means of deportation

(People)

Year Measure of Deportation	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Total	23,931	18,241	13,224	8,721	6,459
Voluntary departure	23,093	17,569	12,812	8,379	6,170
Deportation in accordance with Article 59	407	200	106	86	78
Individual deportation at the expense of the government	383	438	291	231	191
Group deportation at the expense of the government	0	0	0	0	0
Others	0	0	0	0	0
Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons	48	34	15	25	20

$ ^{*1} $ Group deportation at the expense of the government includes cases where both the Japanese government and the deportee's homeland government paid for the expenses.

$ ^{*2} $ “Others” are cases of deportation at the expense of the government of each of the deportees.
## (1) Deportation at the Expense of the Foreign National (Voluntary Departure)

The number of foreign nationals who were deported at their own expense had decreased by 2,209 (26.4%) from 2011 to 6,170 (95.5%) in 2012. (Table 41)

The Immigration Bureau deports deportees as soon as the requirements necessary for deportation, such as the passport, air ticket or travel expenses, have been fulfilled. However, with regard to those who do not fulfill the requirements for deportation, the Immigration Bureau not only enforces the deportation procedures but also instructs deportees to make contact with relevant people in Japan or their home countries in order to ask for financial assistance for deportation. In cases where deportees do not possess a passport, the Immigration Bureau asks foreign diplomatic establishments in Japan for the early issuance of a passport for the deportee.

Table 42 Changes in the number of deportees through voluntary departure by nationality/region

(People)

YearNationality/region	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Total	23,093	17,569	12,812	8,379	6,170
China	6,686	5,390	4,232	2,972	2,364
R.O.Korea	2,836	2,402	1,704	1,158	947
Philippines	4,242	3,096	2,368	1,494	926
Viet Nam	1,008	695	564	363	331
Thailand	1,214	1,084	717	473	312
Indonesia	1,549	878	496	244	164
Sri Lanka	986	667	404	186	135
Iran	279	177	142	123	114
Peru	460	617	328	198	113
Nepal	408	274	210	107	100
Others	3,425	2,289	1,647	1,061	664

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

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

As illegal foreign residents tend to stay for a longer period than they used to and tend to have more diversified 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 the expense of the government in consideration of individual circumstances stood at 191 (3.0%) in 2012 and had decreased by 40 (17.3%) from 2011.
## (3) Deportation at the Expense of and on the Responsibility of Carriers

Any carrier who operates a vessel or aircraft that has transported any foreign national who is issued with a deportation order must promptly send such foreign national out of Japan at its own expense and on its own responsibility under certain conditions (deportation under Article 59 of the Immigration Control Act)(*). The number of foreign nationals deported in this way in 2012 was 78 (1.2%), a decline of 8 (9.3%) from 2011. (Table 41)

## 6 Departure Orders

## (1) 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 2,587 in 2012, accounting for 17.0% of the total number of foreign nationals violating the Immigration Control Act.

### A. The Number of Foreign Nationals Ordered to Depart by Nationality/Region

According to statistics by nationality/region, the largest number was from China (1,244 accounting for 48.1% of the total), followed by R.O. Korea (343 accounting for 13.3%), the Philippines (338 accounting for 13.1%), Thailand (109 accounting for 4.2%), and Viet Nam (93 accounting for 3.6%), and these top five countries account for 82.2% of the total. (Table 43)

Table 43 Number of foreign nationals handed over under a departure order by nationality/region (2012)

(People)

ArticleNationality/region	Total	24-(ii)-3	24-(iv)-(b)	24-(vi)	24-(vi)-2	24-(vii)
Total	2,587	5	2,489	45	1	47
China	1,244	4	1,221	16	0	3
R.O.Korea	343	0	341	0	0	2
Philippines	338	1	306	11	0	20
Thailand	109	0	103	3	0	3
Viet Nam	93	0	90	1	0	2
Indonesia	90	0	83	6	1	0
Sri Lanka	53	0	52	0	0	1
Mongolia	50	0	48	1	0	1
Peru	39	0	34	0	0	5
Taiwan	29	0	28	0	0	1
Others	199	0	183	7	0	9

$ ^{*} $ “China” does not include Taiwan, Hong Kong or others.
### B. The Number of Foreign Nationals Ordered to Depart by Applied Article

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 2,489, accounting for 96.2% of the total. This was followed by 47 (1.8%) suspects violating Article 24, item (vii) of the Immigration Control Act, and 45 (1.7%) suspects violating Article 24, item (vi) of the Immigration Control Act. (Table 43)

## (2) Examination

### A. Receipt and Processing of Cases

The number of cases of departure orders received in 2012 was 2,594, accounting for 16.1% of the total number of violations received. This represented a decline of 1,907 (42.4%) from 2011.

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 2,594 in 2012.

According to statistics by nationality/region, the largest number was from China (1,252 accounting for 48.3% of the total), followed by Korea (348 accounting for 13.4%), the Philippines (336 accounting for 13.0%), Thailand (109 accounting for 4.2%), and Viet Nam (92 accounting for 3.5%), and the top five countries accounted for 82.4% of the total. (Table 44)

Table 44 Changes in the number of issuances of written departure orders by nationality/region

Year Nationality/region	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Total	8,477	9,041	5,186	4,501	2,594
China	3,136	3,200	2,220	2,252	1,252
Korea	1,142	885	728	582	348
Philippines	1,141	1,329	754	456	336
Thailand	222	288	229	139	109
Viet Nam	472	603	189	189	92
Indonesia	590	707	183	146	90
Sri Lanka	238	327	151	136	53
Mongolia	153	126	82	113	50
Peru	212	367	93	61	37
Brazil	75	103	48	42	22
Others	1,096	1,106	509	385	205

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

## (3) Confirmation of Departure

Foreign nationals who are deemed to be subject to a departure order are required, as with foreign nationals departing within the period of stay, to submit an embarkation/disembarkation (ED) card to the immigration inspector in order to receive a seal of departure, and to submit the written departure order that was issued to them.
### Chapter 6. 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 Refugee Convention and the Protocol (hereinafter, “the Refugee Convention” and “the Protocol” are referred to together as “the Refugee Convention etc.”) and as a result, also established a system for recognition of refugee status.

Thereafter, from the perspective of ensuring proper and prompt protection of refugees through fairer procedures, the refugee recognition system has undergone some revisions. The Act to Amend the Immigration Control Act and Other Related Acts was enforced on May 16, 2005, which included the establishment of a system to permit provisional stay and the refugee examination counselors system. The amended Act has been in force since May 16, 2005.

The Immigration Bureau has further improved and strengthened its organizational structure and investigation system, and has endeavored to ensure prompt and proper implementation of the new refugee recognition system, in order to handle applications for refugee status quickly and appropriately.

## Section 1 ☐ Applications and Processing for Recognition of Refugee Status

## Application for Refugee Status

In 2012, the total number of those who applied for recognition of refugee status had increased by 678 (36.3%) from 2011 to 2,545, continuing to mark a record high. (Table 45)

Table 45 Changes in the number of applications for refugee recognition

2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Applications	1,599	1,388	1,202	1,867	2,545

The number of nationalities/regions of applicants was 50, and the major nationalities/regions from which applicants came were, in descending order, Turkey (423 persons, or 16.6%), Myanmar (368 persons, or 14.5%), Nepal (320 persons, or 12.6%), Pakistan (298 persons, or 11.7%), Sri Lanka (255 persons, or 10.0%), Bangladesh (169 persons, or 6.6%), India (125 persons, or 4.9%), Nigeria (118 persons, or 4.6%), Ghana (104 persons, or 4.1%), and Cameroon (58 persons, or 2.3%).

Applicants consisted of 1,777 legal residents (69.8%) and 768 illegal foreign residents (30.2%) at the time of submitting their applications. Of those foreign nationals without a legal status, the number of those who applied after a detention order or deportation order was issued was 586, accounting for 76.3% of the total.

22.5% of the total applicants, standing at 573 persons, had applied for recognition of refugee status in the past. Those persons consisted of 279 legal residents, 90.7% of whom held the status of residence of “Designated Activities” granted by reason that their applications were undergoing examination, and 294 illegal foreign residents, 82.7% of whom had already been issued with a deportation order.
## Section 2 Filing of an Objection

## Filing of an Objection

The total number of objections filed by applicants who were denied refugee status (hereinafter referred to as “Denial of Recognition of Refugee Status”) in 2012 was 1,738, an increase of 19 (1.1%) from 2011. (Table 47)

Table 47 Changes in the number of objections filed, and decisions of the Minister of Justice

Year Division	1982~2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	Total
Not recognized as a refugee	2,773	389	446	791	1,703	1,336	2,002	2,083	11,523
Filing of objection	1,862	340	362	429	1,156	859	1,719	1,738	8,465
Decisions	With reason	32	12	4	17	8	13	14	13	113
Without reason	1,425	127	183	300	230	325	635	790	4,015
Withdrawn	295	33	34	34	70	113	231	193	1,003

$ ^{*} $ Since the procedure for the “filing of an objection” was newly established through the amendment of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, which entered into force on May 16, 2005, the “application for objection” made prior to the implementation of the amended Act was deemed to be replaced by “filing of an objection” after the implementation.

## ② Processing of the Objection

Of the objections filed by applicants who failed to obtain refugee status, 996 of them were handled in 2012, an increase of 116 (13.2%) from 2011. According to statistics, 13 objections were found to be with reasonable grounds (14 in the previous year), 790 objections were found to be without any reasonable grounds (635 in the previous year), and 193 objections were withdrawn by the foreign nationals who had filed the objections (231 in the previous year). (Table 47)

## 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 the objection filing procedures. This procedure made it mandatory for the Minister of Justice to hear the opinions of refugee examination counselors when making a decision 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 for the denial of refugee status and who have an 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, an oral statement of opinions by the petitioner, etc. is given in which the petitioner or other person states his or her opinion and a hearing is held where the refugee inquirer or refugee examination counselors may ask questions to the petitioner.

In 2012, the number of oral statements of opinion and hearings was 712.
After the oral statement of opinions and the hearing, 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 718 in 2012.

There has been no case in which the Minister of Justice rendered a disposition which did not conform to the opinions of the refugee examination counselors (should there be a difference in opinion, then the opinions of the majority of the counselors will prevail) up until the end of 2012 after the start of the system.

## Section 4 ☐ Landing Permission for Temporary Refuge

With respect to landing permission for temporary refuge, 194 applications were submitted and 15 applications were granted such permission over the past five years (from 2008 to 2012).
## Article: At the front line of immigration control administration (voice of a refugee inquirer)(Tomohiro Tatsu-mi, Refugees Examination Department, Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau)

I work as a refugee inquirer at the Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau. I strongly feel in my day-to-day operations that refugee inquirers need the following qualifications.

First, a refugee inquirer must be a “good legal professional”. Refugee inquirers conduct investigations into fact to judge whether the applicant falls within the definition of refugee as defined in the Refugee Convention etc., and it is not possible for us to conduct well-focused investigations unless we are familiar with Japanese laws and ordinances, the Refugee Convention and other statutes and are able to fully understand the contents of those laws and the Convention.

Next, I believe that refugee inquirers need to be a “good researcher”. In Japan, those who come from numerous, differing countries/regions have submitted applications for recognition of refugee status. We cannot accurately grasp the circumstances of the applicant unless we are acquainted with their culture, history and other factors, in addition to the security situation back in their home country. To this end, refugee inquirers gather and analyze information on the countries of origin of the applicants through books and newspapers, the Internet and other various means.

I also believe that a refugee inquirer must also be a “good listener”. In most cases, the applicants have not brought evidence and supporting materials from their home countries, and the statements of the applicants are very important. Some applicants who speak of severe experiences such as the experience of torture back in their home countries may not remember their experiences well, may be confused, or may repeatedly assert the same things. A refugee inquirer must genuinely give their full attention to such claims which is akin to searching through a muddy stream, and must diligently and exhaustively pick up each and every kernel of truth that the applicant is attempting to express.

The Immigration Bureau provides a wide variety of training sessions to train such refugee inquirers. Fortunately, I had the chance to participate in two-week UNHCR internship programs at its headquarters in Geneva and elsewhere, and a two-month program at its office in Malaysia, and was able to experience the frontline of the international refugee status recognition procedures. The duties of refugee inquirers are specialized and difficult, and we need to study every day. However, I would like to strive to do my utmost bearing in mind that I bear a grave responsibility that may directly impact the lives of others.
### Chapter 7. Promotion of Measures against Trafficking in Persons and Proper Protection of Foreign Victims of Domestic Violence

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

## 1 Protection of Victims of Trafficking in Persons

Trafficking in persons is a grave violation of human rights and a prompt and accurate response is called for from a humanitarian perspective. This is because human trafficking causes serious mental and physical 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 "Action Plan of Measures to Combat Trafficking in Persons" approved in December 2004 and the "2009 Action Plan of Measures to Combat Trafficking in Persons" approved in December 2009.

The number of foreign nationals for whom the Immigration Bureau implemented procedures for protection as victims of trafficking in persons (including support to return to their home countries) was 9 persons in 2012 (21 persons in the previous year). According to statistics by nationality/region, the Philippines had 4 victims (13 in the previous year), followed by Thailand with 4 victims (8 in the previous year) and Taiwan with 1 (none in the previous year).

Of the 9 victims, 8 were legal residents (6 in the previous year), and 1 was a person who had violated the Immigration Control Act (15 in the previous year). Special permission to stay in Japan was granted to the victim who had violated the Immigration Control Act. (Table 48)

The number of victims has declined significantly since 2005, when the Immigration Bureau started the survey and protected 115 victims, and the number has been hovering around 20 to 30 in recent years. In 2012, the number further declined. It is considered that the reason for such decline is due to the fact that the Government as a whole is taking overall and comprehensive countermeasures against trafficking in persons based on the “Action Plan of Measures to Combat Trafficking in Persons” and that countermeasures for preventing trafficking in persons, including a review of the entry permission criteria (ministerial ordinance) relating to the status of residence of “Entertainer”, and the implementation of stricter entry examinations, have achieved a certain effect. (Table 49)

Table 48 Number of victims of trafficking in persons (2012)

(People)

BreakdownNationality/region	Recognized as a victim of trafficking in persons	Total
Legal resident	Violators of the Immigration Control Act(Special Permission to Stay in Japan)
Philippines	4	0	4
Thailand	3	1(1)	4
Taiwan	1	0	1
Total	8	1(1)	9