Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
## Article: At the front line of immigration control administration (voice of an immigration inspector in charge of residence examinations)(Mina Yoriki, Business and Employment Inspection Department, Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau)

The task of an immigration inspector in charge of the examination of statuses of residence is to examine applications for permission for extension of the period of stay and applications for permission to change the status of residence. We strive to secure appropriate control over the residence of foreign nationals.

The Business and Employment Inspection Department of the Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau, where I work, examines the applications for statuses of residence for the purpose of working in Japan. There are 17 statuses of residence intended for the purpose of working in Japan such as “Engineer”, “Specialist in Humanities/International Services”, and “Intra-company Transferee” out of the 30 statuses of residence in total. One of the characteristics of the Work Examination Division is to handle a wide variety of statuses of residence.

As many college students studying at a Japanese university or college wish to continue to stay in Japan to work at a company or organization in Japan, the number of applications for permission to change to a status of residence for employment increases in March and April, which is the busiest season in the year. We decide whether the applicant falls under a status of residence for employment in Japan by examining the working conditions and treatment provided by the employer at the place where the applicant intends to work, the applicant's academic grades and other factors.

Therefore, the examination of statuses of residence forms an important administrative action affecting the foundation of the lives of foreign nationals staying in Japan, and I feel responsible for conducting a careful and appropriate examination for each individual application based on relevant laws and ordinances, and public notices.

Each individual application differs from case to case. It is necessary to constantly acquire a wide range of knowledge and to make well-balanced judgments by appropriately figuring out the details of each application. I believe that it is rewarding work.

In addition, the examination of each individual application is a part of Japan's policy of accepting foreign nationals. Keeping this in mind, I carry out my daily tasks.
Table 19 Changes in the number of organizations subject to a finding of misconduct by type of receiving arrangement

YearType of receiving arrangement	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Company-arranged scheme	7	2	3	2	0
Association-supervised scheme	Supervising organization (Primary receiving organization)	29	34	17	14	9
Program implementing organization (Secondary receiving organization)	416	324	143	168	188
Total	452	360	163	184	197

“Abuse of human rights”, “violation of labor-related laws/regulations”, and “name lending” were the three major forms of “misconduct”, in total accounting for 87.5% of the total. (Table 20)

With respect to the technical intern training, as described above, there are still a considerable number of organizations committing inappropriate conduct even after the introduction of the new system. Therefore, we will endeavor to continue checking the situation, closely coordinate with the relevant institutions, and actively conduct research into the facts, requesting organizations which are committing inappropriate conduct to take corrective measures as necessary.
Table 20 Number of cases of misconduct by category (2012)

(Cases)

Category	Company-arranged scheme (0 Organizations)	Association-supervised scheme	Total (197 Organizations)
Supervising organization (9 Organizations)	Program implementing organization (188 Organizations)
Guidelines	Ministerial Ordinance	Guidelines	Ministerial Ordinances	Subtotal	Guidelines	Ministerial Ordinances	Subtotal	Guidelines	Ministerial Ordinances	Subtotal
Dual contract	Dual contract	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Discrepancy compared with the Trainee and Technical Intern Training Plan	Discrepancy compared with Trainee and Technical Intern Training Plan	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	8	9	10
Name lending	Name lending	0	0	0	1	1	2	9	7	16	18
Document forgery/preparation and use of fraudulent documents	Document forgery/preparation and use of fraudulent documents	0	0	0	1	3	4	1	2	3	7
Work in excess of statutory working hours	Work in excess of statutory working hours	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	1	3	3
Malicious acts related to human rights infringement	Violence/threats/confinement	0	0	0	0	0	0	19	0	109	109
Confiscation of passport/residence card	0	0	0
Nonpayment	0	0	90
Human rights infringement	0	0	0
Failure to report serious cases, etc.	Program implementing organization's failure to report misconduct/failure to report the impossibility of continuing the program	0	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	0	3
Supervising organization's failure to report misconduct, etc./failure to conduct audit or to establish a consultation system or other system	0	3	0
Frequency of trainees going missing	0	0	0
Employment of illegal foreign workers	Employment of illegal foreign workers	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	5	5
Violation of labor-related regulations	Violation of labor-related regulations	0	0	0	0	0	0	58	25	83	83
Recurrence of similar inappropriate acts	Repeated misconduct	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Confiscation of deposit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Engaging in work activities during course study period	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Arrangement with profit purpose	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Failure to submit a daily report	0	0	0	0	2	2	2
Failure to submit a report regarding leaving trainees	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	0	0	0	2	8	10	90	140	230	240

(Note 1) If one accepting organization is notified of findings of misconduct in more than one category, it is counted in each category, and therefore, the total number of accepting organizations is not identical to the total number of recognized cases in each category.

(Note 2) For 2011, the Immigration Bureau published statistics on cases of “misconduct” which had occurred before and after the introduction of the current system (in July 2010). Therefore, the number of cases of misconduct in and before June 2012 is counted in accordance with the categories specified in the Guidelines Concerning the Entry and Residence Management of Technical Intern Trainees (revised in 2007), while the number of cases of misconduct in and after July 2012 is counted in accordance with the Ministerial Ordinance for the Landing Criteria.
## Section 3 ☐ Amendment of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice and Other Orders Relating to “Technical Intern Training”

On November 1, 2012, the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice and other orders were amended to reinforce protection for the technical interns and to secure appropriate management of the technical intern training programs. More specifically, those amendments included: (i) clarification of the starting point from when a facility implementing a technical intern training program, which has committed misconduct that interfered with the appropriate implementation of the technical intern training, will no longer be allowed to accept new technical interns; (ii) withholding of permission for acceptance if the supervising organization has been involved in submitting any false applications over the past five years; and (iii) the requirement to submit a prompt report on any misconduct committed by the facility implementing the technical intern training program or the supervising organization to the competent regional immigration bureau.
### Chapter 4. Japanese Nationals Departing from and Returning to Japan

## Section 1 ◆ The Number of Japanese Nationals Departing from Japan

## The Total Number of Japanese Nationals Departing from Japan

The total number of Japanese nationals departing from Japan in 2012 marked a record high at 18,490,657, an increase of 1,496,457 (8.8%) from 2011. (Chart 22)

Chart 22: Changes in the number of Japanese nationals departing from Japan

## ② The Number of Japanese Nationals Departing from Japan by Gender and Age

According to statistics by gender, the number of Japanese nationals departing from Japan in 2012 was composed of 10,069,557 males and 8,421,100 females; males accounted for 54.5% of the total and females accounted for 45.5%. There have been no significant changes in the percentages of either males or females since 2001, and the percentage of males continues to exceed that of females.

According to statistics by age, the number of Japanese nationals departing from Japan in 2012 was composed of 3,662,497 Japanese nationals in their 40s, which accounted for 19.8% of the total, followed by 3,609,166 in their 60s or older (19.5%), 3,595,736 in their 30s (19.4%), 3,086,936 in their 50s (16.7%), and 3,030,992 in their 20s (16.4%).

The percentages of males and females by age shows that the percentage of females younger than 20 and in their 20s exceeded that of males, and in particular, in respect of those in their 20s, females accounted for 63.3%, a particularly high percentage. Figures for those older than their 20s show that the percentage of males departing from Japan exceeded that of females. (Chart 23)
Chart 23: Number of Japanese nationals departing from Japan by gender and age (2012)

## ③ The Number of Japanese Nationals Departing from Japan by Airport and Seaport

According to the statistics of Japanese nationals departing from Japan in 2012 by airport and seaport of departure, the number of persons using airports to depart from Japan was 18,280,166, accounting for 98.9% of the total. When compared with the percentage of foreign nationals entering Japan (foreign nationals using airports accounted for 93.4%), the percentage of airport users is much higher.

Of the Japanese nationals using airports to depart from Japan in 2012, the number of users of Narita Airport was 8,319,613, which accounted for 45.5% of the total number of persons using airports to depart from Japan, and those using Kansai Airport was 3,622,975, which accounted for 19.8%. This means that 65.3% of the total number of persons departing from airports use these two airports. Other than Narita and Kansai airports, the number of users of Haneda Airport was 2,837,845 (15.5%), while the number of users of Chubu Airport was 1,668,995 (9.1%).

On the other hand, of the Japanese nationals using seaports to depart from Japan in 2012, the number of Japanese nationals using Hakata Port, where scheduled passenger ships operate between Japan and R.O. Korea, was 141,591, which accounted for 67.3% of the total number of persons departing from seaports, and the number using Shimonoseki Port was 18,914, which accounted for 9.0% of the total. This means that 76.3% of the total number of Japanese nationals departing from seaports used these two seaports. Yokohama Port, 15,101 (7.2%) and Osaka Port, 7,481 (3.6%) followed these two major seaports.
## Section 2 ◆ The Number of Japanese Nationals Returning to Japan

Airport landing examination

The total number of returning Japanese nationals in 2012 was 18,408,185. By period of stay in foreign countries after departure, the number of persons returning within one month after departure was 16,898,410, which accounted for 91.8% of the total. Of those, the number of persons returning within ten days was 15,364,844, which accounted for 90.9% of those who returned within one month after departure.

This is because most Japanese tourists going abroad who depart for a purpose requiring only a short period such as sightseeing and business return promptly. This trend has continued in recent years and no major change has been observed. (Table 21)

Table 21 Changes in the number of Japanese nationals returning to Japan by period of stay

YearPeriod of Stay	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Total	15,905,433	15,432,549	16,611,884	16,921,103	18,408,185
Within 5 days	9,344,449	9,341,903	9,904,585	10,039,111	10,916,364
More than 5 days to 10 days	3,935,729	3,613,776	4,002,339	4,055,123	4,448,480
More than 10 days to 20 days	1,007,021	897,894	998,258	1,054,248	1,129,239
More than 20 days to 1 month	342,367	298,834	347,066	388,970	404,327
More than 1 month to 3 months	560,726	529,070	542,196	588,327	639,672
More than 3 months to 6 months	319,749	324,165	314,762	323,218	357,644
More than 6 months to 1 year	270,411	290,320	258,013	256,264	270,945
More than 1 year to 3 years	111,398	124,015	124,335	119,588	137,043
More than 3 years	8,354	7,479	8,567	8,281	11,045
Unknown	5,229	5,093	111,763	87,973	93,426
### Chapter 5. Deportation Procedures for Foreign Nationals

## Section 1 ♦ Foreign Nationals Overstaying Their Authorized Period of Stay

Based on the computer statistics of the Immigration Bureau, the estimated number of foreign nationals who overstayed (those who illegally stay in Japan beyond their authorized period of stay) was 62,009 as of January 1, 2013. This number has been steadily decreasing, a decline of 5,056 (7.5%) from 67,065 on January 1, 2012, in other words, a decline of 236,637 (79.2%) from a record high of 298,646 on May 1, 1993.

This decline may be attributed to the effects of comprehensive countermeasures, including the implementation of stricter immigration examinations at the port of entry, and efforts for close cooperation with other related agencies to detect violators of the Immigration Control Act as well as proactive public relation activities to prevent illegal employment.

Investigation into a violation

## The Number of Foreign Nationals Overstaying Their Authorized Period of Stay by Nationality/Region

As of May 1, 1993, when the highest number of foreign nationals overstaying their authorized period of stay was recorded, the nationality/region of the largest number of foreign nationals was Thailand, followed by R.O. Korea, the Philippines, China and Malaysia. As of January 1, 2013, the nationality/region of the largest number of foreign nationals overstaying their authorized period of stay was R.O. Korea (15,607, accounting for 25.2% of the total), followed by China (7,730, accounting for 12.5%), the Philippines (5,722, accounting for 9.2%), Taiwan (4,047, accounting for 6.5%), Thailand (3,558, accounting for 5.7%), Malaysia (2,192, accounting for 3.5%), and Singapore (1,304, accounting for 2.1%).

Taking a look at the changes after May 1, 1993, although new entries increased significantly owing to visa-exemption measures being implemented with regard to R.O. Korea for those foreign nationals intending to engage in activities that may be performed under the status of residence of “Temporary Visitor”, the number of those found overstaying from R.O. Korea has been consistently decreasing since January 1, 1999. The number of those from Thailand has been steadily decreasing since May 1, 1993. The number of those from Malaysia and Peru has also seen a decline due to a measure to promote the acquisition of visas, which was taken on June 1, 1993 and on July 15, 1995 respectively. The number of those from China continued to decrease from 1994 until 2002. Subsequently, it started to increase in 2003 and further increased in 2004, but it has also shown a decreasing trend since 2005. The number of foreign nationals overstaying their authorized period of stay from the Philippines has been decreasing since 1999, but fluctuated between increasing and decreasing from 2003 to 2006, decreasing after 2007. (Table 22, Chart 24)
Table 22 Changes in the estimated number of foreign nationals staying beyond the authorized period of stay by major nationality/region

(People)

DateNationality/region	May 1 1993	May 1 1994	May 1 1995	May 1 1996	January 1 1997	January 1 1998	January 1 1999	January 1 2000	January 1 2001	January 1 2002	January 1 2003
Total	298,646	293,800	286,704	284,500	282,986	276,810	271,048	251,697	232,121	224,067	220,552
R.O. Korea	39,455	43,369	47,544	51,580	52,387	52,123	62,577	60,693	56,023	55,164	49,874
China	33,312	39,738	39,511	39,140	38,296	37,590	34,800	32,896	30,975	27,582	29,676
Philippines	35,392	37,544	39,763	41,997	42,547	42,608	40,420	36,379	31,666	29,649	30,100
Taiwan	7,457	7,871	7,974	8,502	9,409	9,430	9,437	9,243	8,849	8,990	9,126
Thailand	55,383	49,992	44,794	41,280	39,513	37,046	30,065	23,503	19,500	16,925	15,693
Malaysia	30,840	20,313	14,511	11,525	10,390	10,141	9,989	9,701	9,651	10,097	9,442
Singapore	1,914	2,342	2,600	2,850	2,946	3,027	3,084	3,178	3,302	3,494	3,556
Peru	9,038	12,918	15,301	13,836	12,942	11,606	10,320	9,158	8,502	7,744	7,322
Viet Nam	852	869	453	448	231	731	880	1,092	1,550	2,021	2,697
Sri Lanka	3,763	3,395	2,980	2,783	2,751	3,071	3,734	3,907	3,489	3,730	3,909
Others	81,240	75,449	71,273	70,559	71,574	69,437	65,742	61,947	58,614	58,671	59,157

(People)

DateNationality/region	January 12004	January 12005	January 12006	January 12007	January 12008	January 12009	January 12010	January 12011	January 12012	January 12013
Total	219,418	207,299	193,745	170,839	149,785	113,072	91,778	78,488	67,065	62,009
R.O. Korea	46,425	43,151	40,203	36,321	31,758	24,198	21,660	19,271	16,927	15,607
China	33,522	32,683	31,074	27,698	25,057	18,385	12,933	10,337	7,807	7,730
Philippines	31,428	30,619	30,777	28,491	24,741	17,287	12,842	9,329	6,908	5,722
Taiwan	7,611	6,760	6,696	6,347	6,031	4,950	4,889	4,774	4,571	4,047
Thailand	14,334	12,787	10,352	8,460	7,314	6,023	4,836	4,264	3,714	3,558
Malaysia	8,476	7,431	6,822	6,397	4,804	2,986	2,661	2,442	2,237	2,192
Singapore	3,216	3,075	3,587	2,241	2,207	2,128	2,107	1,789	1,586	1,304
Peru	7,230	6,624	5,997	5,283	4,481	3,396	2,402	1,794	1,377	1,143
Viet Nam	3,582	3,916	4,071	3,959	3,362	2,527	1,531	1,221	1,014	1,110
Sri Lanka	4,242	4,209	4,590	4,042	3,615	2,796	1,952	1,498	1,256	1,084
Others	59,352	56,044	49,576	41,600	36,415	28,396	23,965	21,769	19,668	18,512

$ ^{*} $ “China” does not include Hong Kong or others.
Chart 24: Changes in the estimated number of foreign nationals staying beyond the authorized period of stay by major nationality/region

## ② The Number of Foreign Nationals Overstaying Their Authorized Period of Stay by Status of Residence

Statistics for the estimated number of foreign nationals overstaying their authorized period of stay as of January 1, 2013 by status of residence immediately before their status of residence had expired showed the following: the largest number of foreign nationals overstaying their authorized period of stay had the status of residence of “Temporary Visitor” (43,943) accounting for 70.9% of the total. This was followed by “Spouse or Child of Japanese National” (4,291 accounting for 6.9%), “Student” (2,847 accounting for 4.6%), “Entertainer” (2,432 accounting for 3.9%) and “Long-Term Resident” (2,088 accounting for 3.4%). Compared with the same period for the previous year, the number of those who were granted the status of residence of “Temporary Visitor” had decreased by 2,902 (6.2%), the status of residence of “Spouse or Child of Japanese National” had decreased by 769 (15.2%), the status of residence of “Student” had decreased by 340 (10.7%), the status of residence of “Entertainer” had decreased by 524 (17.7%), and the status of residence of “Long-Term Resident” had decreased by 539 (20.5%), respectively. The number of foreign nationals overstaying their authorized period of stay with the status of residence of “Temporary Visitor” has been on the decline since May 1, 1993, while those with the status of residence of “Entertainer” started to rise on January 1, 2002 and continued increasing, but has been decreasing ever since January 1, 2005. On the other hand, the number of foreign residents with the status of residence of “Student” increased from January 1, 2001, but has since been decreasing since January 1, 2006. (Table 23)
Table 23 Changes in the estimated number of foreign nationals staying beyond the authorized period of stay by major status of residence

(People)

Date Status of Residence	January 1 2008	January 1 2009	January 1 2010	January 1 2011	January 1 2012	January 1 2013
Total	149,785	113,072	91,778	78,488	67,065	62,009
Temporary Visitor	102,069	76,651	63,169	54,220	46,845	43,943
Spouse or Child of Japanese National	10,502	7,576	6,456	5,843	5,060	4,291
Student	10,978	8,276	5,842	4,322	3,187	2,847
Entertainer	6,624	5,015	4,120	3,425	2,956	2,432
Long-Term Resident	5,499	4,044	3,505	3,199	2,627	2,088
Others	14,113	11,510	8,686	7,479	6,390	6,408

$ ^{*} $ The number of foreign nationals overstaying with the status of residence, “Student” includes the number of foreign nationals whose status of residence was “Pre-college Student” under the previous Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, which was revised on July 1, 2010, at the time when they came to be considered to be overstaying.

## Section 2 ☐ Cases of Violation of the Immigration Control Act Necessitating the Implementation of Deportation Procedures

Detection

## 1 Outline

In 2012, the number of foreign nationals against whom deportation procedures were enforced on account of violation of the Immigration Control Act was 15,178, a decline of 5,481 from 2011. Of these, 2,587 were handed over to immigration inspectors as those subject to the departure order system.

According to the statistics of the number of foreign nationals by grounds for deportation, the largest number of foreign nationals were deported for overstaying (11,439 accounting for 75.4%), followed by illegal entry (1,875 accounting for 12.4%), followed by activities other than those permitted under the status of residence previously granted (617 accounting for 4.1%). Foreign nationals overstaying their authorized period of stay continued to account for a predominant percentage. (Table 24)

Looking at the statistics for the number of cases of violation of the Immigration Control Act by nationality/region, the largest number of such foreign nationals was from China for ten consecutive years (4,545 accounting for 29.9%), followed by the Philippines (2,972 accounting for 19.6%), and R.O. Korea (2,028 accounting for 13.4%). These top three countries made up 62.9% of the total. (Table 25)

Of the foreign nationals in violation of the Immigration Control Act against whom the deportation procedures were enforced in 2012, the number of those who illegally worked in Japan was 8,979, accounting for 59.2% of the total.