Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
4-1 Changes in the number of new arrivals of Brazilian nationals by status of residence

(People)

Year	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Status of Residence
Total	31,002	15,874	22,210	19,694	34,201
Diplomat	136	84	100	47	86
Official	261	154	212	141	200
Professor	6	11	17	8	5
Artist	3	2	4	3	4
Religious Activities	35	17	31	19	26
Journalist	3	2	5	1	-
Investor/Business Manager	3	2	2	2	-
Legal/Accounting Services	-	-	-	-	-
Medical Services	-	-	-	-	-
Researcher	2	2	6	2	2
Instructor	6	2	1	3	3
Engineer	7	3	6	5	5
Specialist in Humanities/International Services	16	5	9	12	12
Intra-company Transferee	52	44	63	35	74
Entertainer	656	515	382	340	349
Skilled Labor	10	10	6	4	4
Technical Intern Training 1-(a)	-	4	2
Technical Intern Training 1-(b)	-	-	1
Technical Intern Training 2-(a)	-	-
Technical Intern Training 2-(b)	-	-
Cultural Activities	8	11	12	22	34
Temporary Visitor	16,600	12,920	17,491	15,177	28,411
College Student	111	122	129	121	139
Pre-college Student	34	28	15
Trainee	229	250	369	277	305
Dependent	108	109	105	122	121
Designated Activities	12	17	19	17	17
Spouse or Child of Japanese National	2,895	483	921	915	1,067
Spouse or Child of Permanent Resident	174	44	59	61	97
Long-Term Resident	9,635	1,037	2,246	2,356	3,237

4-2 Changes in the number of foreign residents of Brazilian nationals by status of residence

(People)

Year	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Status of Residence
Total	312,582	267,456	230,552	210,032	190,581
Professor	38	37	35	32	28
Artist	13	12	11	11	10
Religious Activities	123	110	112	92	97
Journalist	3	4	4	2	2
Investor/Business Manager	29	28	28	28	19
Legal/Accounting Services	-	-	-	-	-
Medical Services	-	-	-	-	-
Researcher	11	13	14	12	11
Instructor	17	9	8	10	15
Engineer	57	54	47	46	47
Specialist in Humanities/International Services	112	103	82	73	78
Intra-company/Transferee	108	94	73	70	90
Entertainer	211	197	159	140	105
Skilled Labor	85	72	65	52	41
Technical Intern Training 1-(a)	-	-	1
Technical Intern Training 1-(b)	-	-	1
Technical Intern Training 2-(a)	-	-	-
Technical Intern Training 2-(b)	-	-	-
Cultural Activities	7	9	9	15	27
Temporary Visitor	681	588	510	320
College Student	355	365	377	322	312
Pre-college Student	53	51
Trainee	82	70	68	78	33
Dependent	480	451	368	358	326
Designated Activities	148	122	121	114	50
Permanent Resident	110,267	116,228	117,760	119,748	114,632
Spouse or Child of Japanese National	58,445	43,443	30,003	23,921	19,519
Spouse or Child of Permanent Resident	1,773	1,905	1,979	2,043	2,067
Long-Term Resident	137,005	101,250	77,359	62,077	53,044
Special Permanent Resident	26	22	20	21	26
Without Acquiring Status of Residence	2,327	2,129	1,309	433
Temporary Refuge	-	-	-	-
Others	126	90	31	14
## (3) The Status of Implementation of Immigration Examination Using Personal Identification Information (2012)

• Number of the implementation of expulsion order

Nationality/region
R.O.Korea	292
China	80
Turkey	46
Others	193
Total	611

• Number of the implementation of deportation procedures

[Airport $ \cdot $ Port]
Narita Airport	280
Kansai Airport	119
Haneda Airport	77
Others	135
Total	611

Turkey	4
China	2
Philippines	2
Others	7
Total	15

[Airport · Port]

Narita Airport	8
Kansai Airport	3
Haneda Airport	0
Others	4
Total	15

(4)Changes in the Number of Cases of Detection of Forged or Altered Documents

Division	Year	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Landing	Passport	275	131	120	105	106
Others	321	103	108	104	81
Total	596	234	228	209	187
Departure	Passport	26	28	12	14	18
Others	7	10	2	3	8
Total	33	38	14	17	26
Total	Passport	301	159	132	119	124
Others	328	113	110	107	89
Total	629	272	242	226	213

(Cases)
Data Section 3(1) New Residency Management System (for foreign nationals residing legally for a mid to long-term with a status of residence)
Data Section 3(2) System for Special Permanent Residents
## Data Section 4 Immigration Litigation

## Section 1 ☐ Summary

Most administrative litigation, etc. relating to the Immigration Bureau (hereinafter referred to as “Immigration Litigation”) is litigation demanding revocation of a written deportation order issued to a foreign national illegally residing in Japan, or litigation demanding revocation of the decision of non-recognition as a refugee.

The number of litigation cases, which were filed and newly accepted in 2012, was 340 in judgments on merits (previous year: 243), an increase of 97 cases from the previous year. Looking at yearly changes from 2008 to 2012, the number of litigation cases still remained at high levels, although it saw repeated ups and downs. In addition, the number of completed litigations by year was, in judgments on merits, 355 cases in 2008, 310 cases in 2009, 288 cases in 2010, 214 cases in 2011, and 263 cases in 2012 (Table 51).

As the background to the fact that the number of newly accepted cases has been at high levels, the reform of the judicial system, which was intended to ensure prompt court proceedings through proper and sufficient procedures, can be cited. In particular, the Act for Partial Amendment of the Administrative Litigation Act entered into force on April 1, 2005. This aimed to develop a more effective remedial procedure for the rights and interests of people in connection with administrative litigations, the amendment of which involved the establishment of a system of provision of information (instruction) on the statute of limitations, etc., extension of the statute of limitations, simplified and easy-to-understand eligibility for defendants in revocation litigation, etc. and so on. Such amendments can be regarded as the background to the trend of the number of newly accepted cases remaining at high levels. Also, efforts are being made to further accelerate court proceedings as a whole due to the Act on the Expediting of Trials which was promulgated and came into force in July 2003, and this can be regarded as the background to the recent high levels of the number of completed cases.

Further, immigration litigation of recent years has shown a tendency to new types of litigation being instituted, such as obligating special permission to stay in Japan, provisionally obligating provisional release permission, injunction or provisional injunction of enforcement of issuance of detention orders. The circumstances in which obligating litigation and injunction litigation were made statutory and a provisional remedy system prior to judgment on the merits of the case was defined by the Act for Partial Amendment of the Administrative Litigation Act, where litigation systems of these types were actively utilized, can be regarded as the background.
Table 51 Trend in the number of filed cases of immigration litigation (judgments on merits) (as of the end of 2012)

Year	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Category
Administrative case	Procedures for deportation-related matters (Demand for revocation; confirmation of invalidity, etc.)	234	162	172	167	264
Status of residence examination-related matters (Demand for revocation of the disposition of denial; confirmation of invalidity, etc.)	17	16	21	23	17
Certificate of eligibility (Demand for revocation of the disposition of non-issuance; confirmation of invalidity, etc.)	8	10	15	8	6
Procedures for refugee status-related matters (Demand for revocation; confirmation of invalidity, etc.)	72	50	55	40	46
Others	4	1	5	1	4
Sub-total	335	239	268	239	337
Civil cases	1	1	0	4	3
Claim for protection of personal liberty	0	0	0	0	0
Total	336	240	268	243	340
Completed litigations	355	310	288	214	263

## Section 2 ◆ Major Court Cases

## Court case 1 [Relationship between deviation from and abuse of discretionary power and violation of the principle of proportionality]

The plaintiff-first daughter and the plaintiff-second daughter had completed compulsory education and entered high school, and the plaintiff-first son was going to elementary school in Japan. Therefore, they had adapted themselves to their life in Japan. Given this fact, there is no denying that there are certain positive elements to be considered when judging whether special permission to stay in Japan should be granted or not. On the other hand, the circumstances of the entry and stay in Japan by the plaintiff-father was considerably wrongful, and the circumstances of stay in Japan by the plaintiff-mother was also wrongful, it was unavoidable for a judgment to be rendered that no special permission to stay in Japan should be granted to the plaintiff-father and the plaintiff-mother. A further problem was whether special permission to stay in Japan should be granted only to the plaintiff-children. A judgment on whether special permission to stay in Japan should be granted only to the plaintiff-children even if this results in them being ultimately separated from the their parents was also left to broad discretionary power to be exerted by comprehensively considering various circumstances. Given that it was reasonably possible for the plaintiff-children to become accustomed to the language and culture of their home country, it cannot be concluded that deciding that special permission to stay in Japan should not be granted to any of the plaintiffs, including the plaintiff-children, constitutes a deviation from and abuse of discretionary power.

(…) Given the reasoning illustrated above, it cannot be said that it is illegal by reason that each of the decisions rendered in this case violates the principle of proportionality.
and, accordingly, the waiver of the right to demand a hearing in the absence of an interpreter is ineffective. However, it is as illustrated earlier that it is recognized that the appellant expressed his real intention to waiver the right to demand a hearing by affixing his signature onto the written waiver of hearing after he understood the violation examination procedure as well as the significance and effect of the waiver of the right to demand a hearing, and it is impossible to adopt the contention of the appellant.

[Tokyo High Court Judgment on September 13, 2012]

## Court Case 5 [Evaluation of the disposition of no permission to change the status of residence to “Temporary Visitor” for the purpose of raising and supervising a child]

While the plaintiff submitted the application for change of the status of residence to “Temporary Visitor” for the purpose of raising her biological child D, it is obvious that such an act of raising and supervision does not fall within an activity that can be achieved by temporarily staying in Japan. And, there is no fact found that the plaintiff was taking actions to prepare for departure for the period during which she was permitted to stay in Japan with the status of residence of “Designated Activities” (activities to prepare for departure from Japan and daily activities).

Therefore, even if the Director-General of the Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau made a judgment as to the plaintiff with such a purpose of residence that there is no reason sufficient to believe that it is appropriate to change the status of residence to “Temporary Visitor,” it cannot be said that such judgment has been made beyond the bounds of discretionary power or through an abuse of such power.

(…) As described above, the disposition of no permission in this case should be said to be lawful. However, should the activities underlying “Temporary Visitor” include child raising, whether or not it can be said that the disposition in this case has been made beyond the bounds of discretionary power or through an abuse of such power should further be discussed.

There are so many doubts about the plaintiff’s state of living after she entered Japan, among others, the state of married life with her Japanese ex-husband E, and the statements of the father of her Japanese ex-husband E would make the existence of a sincere marital relationship between the plaintiff and her ex-husband doubtful. She gave birth to D on June 10, 2009 while married her Japanese ex-husband E. However, it has to be said that it is still seriously doubtful whether D is the child between the plaintiff and her Japanese ex-husband E, in light of the above-mentioned relationship between the plaintiff and her Japanese ex-husband E, the status of entry into and departure from Japan by the plaintiff and her Japanese ex-husband E, and the number of pregnancy weeks described in her maternal and child health handbook.

[Tokyo District Court Judgment on October 30, 2012]
## Data Section 5 Organizational Expansion and Staff Enhancement

Owing to significant changes in the circumstances affecting immigration control in recent years, in response to an increase in the quantity and in the complexity of immigration duties, measures have been taken to improve and expand the organization and staff for immigration control.

At the end of FY 2012, immigration control administration work was carried out by about 3,881 officials at the Immigration Bureau of the Ministry of Justice and other immigration control offices. Due to a wide range of problems in immigration control, further improvement and expansion of the organization and staff are still necessary.

## Section 1 ☐ Organizations

## 1 Outline of the Immigration Control Organization

The organization that is responsible for immigration control duties is the Immigration Bureau, which is designated as an internal bureau of the Ministry of Justice. There are eight regional blocks, each of which has a regional immigration bureau as a local branch office of the Ministry of Justice. Each regional immigration bureau manages the district immigration offices and branch offices (including branch offices within the district immigration offices) under its jurisdiction. The Ministry of Justice also maintains three immigration centers as detention facilities. The organization as a whole performs various duties associated with immigration control such as immigration examinations, residence examinations, deportation procedures, and refugee recognition procedures in accordance with relevant laws and ordinances.

The Immigration Bureau, regional immigration bureaus, district immigration offices, branch offices, and immigration centers are collectively referred to as the "immigration control offices". (Charts 27 and 28)

Chart 27 Immigration Bureau organizational chart
Chart 28 Responsibilities of the Immigration Bureau, Ministry of Justice

$ ^{*} $ Other than the positions mentioned above, one Assistant Deputy Vice-Minister of Justice and three attorneys (legal specialists) are assigned to the Immigration Bureau.
it was decided that chief inspectors who report to the directors of branch offices would be allocated, as the branch directors, to the eight branches to which only two supervising inspectors reporting to the branch directors had been allocated.

Table 52 Reorganization, abolishment or establishment of branch offices of the regional immigration bureaus (actual performance)

(As of April 1, 2013)

Division Fiscal Year	Abolition	Establishment
Name	Location	Name	Location
2000	Amagasaki Port Branch OfficeKure Port Branch OfficeKaratsu Port Branch OfficeImari Port Branch Office	Amagasaki CityKure CityKaratsu CityImari City	Saga Branch Office	Saga City
2001	Yokosuka Port Branch OfficeKagoshima Airport Branch OfficeShimizu Port Branch OfficeTagonoura Port Branch Office	Yokosuka CityMizobe-cho Aira-gunShimizu CityFuji City	Shizuoka Branch Office	Shizuoka City
2002	Iwakuni Port Branch OfficeYatsushiro Port Branch OfficeHitachi Port Branch OfficeKashima Port Branch Office	Iwakuni CityYatsushiro CityHitachi CityKamisu-cho Kashima-gun	Kofu Branch OfficeGifu Branch OfficeOtsu Branch OfficeMito Branch Office	Kofu CityGifu CityOtsu CityMito City
2003	Tokyo Port Branch OfficeShibuya Branch OfficeMuroran Port Branch OfficeMiyako Port Branch OfficeOfunato Port Branch OfficeIshinomaki Port Branch OfficeSasebo Port Branch OfficeNaha Port Branch Office	Koto-ku TokyoShibuya-ku TokyoMuroran CityMiyako CityOfunato CityIshinomaki CitySasebo CityNaha City	Shinjuku Branch OfficeMorioka Branch Office	Shinjuku-ku Tokyo Morioka City
2004	Aomori Port Branch OfficeHachinohe Port Branch OfficeYokohama Port Branch OfficeNagoya Port Branch OfficeNagoya Airport Branch OfficeSakai Port Branch OfficeKobe Port Branch OfficeMizushima Port Branch OfficeShibushi Branch Office	Aomori CityHachinohe CityYokohama CityNagoya CityToyoyama-cho Nishikasugai-gun Aichi Sakai CityKobe CityKurashiki CityShibushi-cho Soo-gun Kagoshima	Aomori Branch Office	Aomori City
2005	Naoetsu Port Branch Office	Joetsu City
2007	Osaka Port Branch OfficeTennoji Branch Office	Osaka CityOsaka City	Tobu Branch Office	Edogawa-ku Tokyo
2010	Haneda Airport Branch Office	Ota-ku Tokyo

(*) The abolishment of Haneda Airport Branch Office in FY 2010 was due to the establishment of Haneda Airport District Immigration Office
## Section 2 ◆ Staff

## 1 Immigration Control Staff

In immigration centers and regional immigration bureaus, immigration inspectors and immigration control officers are assigned as staffs who are engaged in immigration control duties. In addition, officers of legal affairs engage in general administrative duties and specialists of legal affairs, including doctors, are also assigned.

Immigration inspectors are responsible for (i) examinations and hearings on landing and

Immigration Control Staff

deportation, (ii) issuance of written detention orders and written deportation orders, (iii) provisional release, and (iv) investigation of recognition of refugees and statuses of residence. They are also engaged in examining statuses of residence as assistants for the Minister of Justice.

Immigration control officers are responsible for (i) investigation of violations concerning entry, landing or residence in Japan, (ii) detention, transportation and deportation of foreign nationals in order to execute written detention orders or written deportation orders, (iii) treatment of inmates in immigration centers and detention facilities and guards of these detention facilities, and (iv) fact investigations for continuous identification of information on mid to long-term residents. They fall under police personnel in terms of the National Public Service Act, while falling under public security service staff in terms of the Act on Remuneration of Officials in the Regular Service, because they are often involved in dangerous tasks.

Immigration control officers are divided into seven ranks (keibikan, keibicho, keibishicho, keibishi, keibishiho, keishucho, and keishu, in order of descending superiority) in order to clarify the chain of command for group operations for detection.

Individual immigration inspectors and immigration control officers perform their duties independently as specialists in immigration control and therefore, the specialist system was introduced. These officials are required to have legal knowledge necessary for their duties as well as a balanced point of view from an international perspective and the ability to interact with foreign nationals flexibly while giving consideration to their diverse cultures, customs and religions and their human rights.

## ② Staff Increase

The number of immigration control staff was 3,885 in FY 2013, up about 14% (472) from FY 2008 (3,413), five years ago. During this period, the number of cases handled by immigration control offices remained at a high level, and the immigration control duties have been getting more complicated and difficult due to the necessity of implementing stricter immigration examinations to prevent terrorism and illegal entry, coping with forged or altered documents that have become increasingly more sophisticated, strengthening residence management related to foreign residents after entry, enforcing strengthened detection of illegal foreign residents, some of whom are potential criminals, and implementing measures against foreign residents disguised as legal residents. (Chart 29, Table 53)
Chart 29: Changes in the number of immigration control office personnel

Table 53 Changes in the number of immigration control office personnel

(People)

Division Fiscal Year	Administrative officials in the Ministry of Justice	Regional Immigration Bureaus	Total
Administrative officials	Inspectors	Control officers	Others	Sub-Total
1985	169	155	703	658	55	1,571	1,740
1990	166	154	777	673	46	1,650	1,816
1995	163	165	1,152	869	38	2,224	2,387
2000	157	164	1,196	998	26	2,384	2,541
2001	156	155	1,211	1,017	26	2,409	2,565
2002	154	146	1,268	1,070	25	2,509	2,663
2003	152	144	1,272	1,101	24	2,541	2,693
2004	142	142	1,343	1,183	23	2,691	2,833
2005	131	122	1,433	1,266	20	2,841	2,972
2006	129	122	1,494	1,367	8	2,991	3,120
2007	128	121	1,580	1,431	8	3,140	3,268
2008	127	129	1,626	1,523	8	3,286	3,413
2009	126	130	1,737	1,564	8	3,439	3,565
2010	126	135	1,881	1,564	8	3,588	3,714
2011	126	139	1,979	1,571	8	3,697	3,823
2012	126	135	2,050	1,562	8	3,755	3,881
2013	126	131	2,089	1,531	8	3,759	3,885
In FY 2013, 73 persons were additionally assigned as immigration inspectors and immigration control officers. An outline of the staff increase is as follows:

## (1) Strengthened Immigration Examination System of the Regional Immigration Bureaus such as the Haneda Airport District Immigration Office of the Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau

The Basic Act for Promoting a Tourism-Oriented Country entered into force in January 2007 and the Basic Plan for Promoting a Tourism-Oriented Country was decided by the Cabinet in June of said year, 2007. In June 2010, the "New Growth Strategy" aiming to "increase the number of foreign tourists visiting Japan to 25 million by 2020" was determined by the Cabinet. In the "New Growth Strategy and Plans", "efforts to increase Chinese visitors" and "reduction of the waiting time required for immigration examination", and other objectives were specified. Under such circumstances, the number of foreign nationals entering Japan, which decreased temporarily due to the global economic recession and other influences in Japan, tended toward recovery due to an economic recovery in the Asian region and the easing of visa requirements for Chinese tourists.

In 2011, the number of foreign nationals entering Japan temporarily decreased due to the Great East Japan Earthquake that struck on March 11. However, groups of tourists from China have restarted to enter Japan, showing a sign of an upward momentum. The accumulated number of foreign nationals entering Japan for the first half of FY 2012 was approximately 4.5 million, and recovered to around 97% of the level of 2010 (approximately 4.62 million).

In July 2012, the new residency management system was introduced as a result of the enforcement of the Act to Amend the Immigration Control Act and Related Acts under which immigration inspectors issue “residence cards” to mid to long-term residents, in addition to affixing a seal on passports at the time of granting landing permission. It also enables foreign nationals who want to land with the status of residence of “Student” to submit an application for permission to engage in an activity other than that permitted under the status of residence previously granted at the time of submitting a landing application so that they can receive permission to engage in an activity other than that permitted under the status of residence previously granted, as a result of which the amount of administrative work substantially increased due to the new operations.

In 2013, it became necessary to make efforts to respond to the increase in international flight arrivals and departures at Haneda Airport, the addition of immigration examination booths resulting from the construction of a new international terminal at Fukuoka Airport, and an increase in port calls of large-size cruise ships, and at the same time, to implement stricter immigration examinations as countermeasures against terrorism and illegal foreign residents.

For this purpose, 65 additional immigration inspectors were allocated to individual bureaus and branch offices, mainly concentrated at Haneda Airport District Immigration Office.