## Court case 2 [Evaluation of the economic situation in the decision on whether or not to grant permission for permanent residence]

In the decision on whether or not to grant permission for permanent residence, foreign nationals whose spouse is a Japanese national are not required to comply with the requirement of showing good behavior and having sufficient assets or skills to make a living but … in order to deem that the permanent residence of the foreign national meets the interests of Japan, the permanent residence should not simply passively be not contravening the interests of Japan but is required to actively and specifically achieve the interests of Japan, and in making this decision, the economic situation of the foreign national is also an important consideration factor.

Plaintiff A has been living in Japan through remittances from China and although she has a part-time job, the amount and source of the remittances from China and the amount of income from the part-time job are all unclear, and moreover, Plaintiff B who is Plaintiff A's spouse and guarantor in Japan, is receiving living assistance under the Public Assistance Act, and therefore the economic situation of Plaintiff A cannot be said to be sound and it has to be said that there is doubt that Plaintiff A will be able to live a stable life in Japan.

Plaintiff A claims that the fact that Plaintiff B is currently receiving the public assistance benefits and that Plaintiff A will be able to receive the public assistance benefits if her economic base becomes unstable in the future should be evaluated as meaning that the economic base is on the contrary stable, but it should be said that receiving the public assistance benefits plainly shows that the economic base is unstable ...

[Ruling of the Tokyo District Court on April 22, 2014]

## Court case 3 [Evaluation of settlement in Japan in the decision on whether or not to grant special permission to stay]

The fact that the plaintiff was born in Japan and lived in Japan until around the age of four, and had been living in Japan for about 40 years after illegally entering Japan can be said to be deemed to be a link between the plaintiff, and Japan and also can be deemed to show settlement in Japan, and comes under positive circumstances with regard to the decision on whether or not to permit special permission to stay to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plaintiff does not have a dependent family in Japan. In addition, judging from the fact that the plaintiff has been working as a day worker during the time of residence in Japan, that he has been living in a live-in dormitory or an apartment rented from the employer, that he has been unemployed since October 2011 and that he has stated to the effect that he will look for work with a bunkhouse if special permission to stay is granted, it is difficult to say that the work environment and living environment in Japan of the plaintiff, who was then 70 years old, were stable at the time of the judgment. Moreover, the plaintiff stole sausages from the food department of a large retail store in March 2012, and therefore his behavior cannot be said to be good. From these points, the link between the plaintiff and Japan and the settlement in Japan may be considered one positive factor in the decision on whether or not to grant special permission to stay but they cannot be specially stressed.

From the fact that plaintiff has neither returned to South Korea for about 40 years, nor kept in touch with any South Korean relatives and that the plaintiff had been entered as having died in 1976 in the Korean family register, it cannot be denied that if the plaintiff is deported to South Korea, there will be a certain degree of difficulty in laying a foundation for living, but looking at the fact that the plaintiff … lived in South Korea for about 26 years and is a healthy adult male who has a history of making a living,