Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
Table 51 Reorganization, abolishment or establishment of branch offices of the regional immigration bureaus (actual performance)

(As of April 1, 2015)

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-kuShibuya-kuMuroran CityMiyako CityOfunato CityIshinomaki CitySasebo CityNaha City	Shinjuku Branch OfficeMorioka Branch Office	Shinjuku-kuMorioka 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 Sakai CityKobe CityKurashiki CityShibushi-cho Soo-gun	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
2010	Haneda Airport Branch Office	Ota-ku
2014	Otaru Port Branch Office	Otaru City	Asahikawa Branch Office	Asahikawa City

$ ^{*} $ The abolishment of Haneda Airport Branch Office in FY 2010 was due to the establishment of Haneda Airport District Immigration Office.
and implementing further appropriate and prompt examination of application for recognition of refugee status (Chart 31, Table 52).

Chart 31 Changes in the number of immigration control office personnel

Table 52 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
2014	126	131	2,204	1,500	8	3,843	3,969
2015	140	124	2,414	1,459	8	4,005	4,145
### Data Section 3. Budget

## Section 1 ☐ Budgets

The changes in the budget for immigration control administration are as shown in Chart 32, and amid the severe administrative and financial situation of recent years, the necessary funds to implement the various measures being promoted by the Immigration Bureau were allocated in the FY 2015 budget. The Immigration Bureau will continue to strive to make effective use of the budget and to reduce administrative costs (Chart 32).

Chart 32 Changes in the budget for immigration control administration

(million yen)

Fiscal Year Division	1995	2000	2005	2010	2014	2015
Personnel expenses	17,914	20,039	21,635	26,264	24,701	25,729
Equipment expenses	10,003	12,737	13,630	19,075	20,503	21,204
Computer-related expenses	3,636	5,745	5,295	10,423	12,731	12,575
Total	27,917	32,776	35,265	45,339	45,204	46,933

$ ^{*} $ The amount of budget is the initial amount of budget.

## Section 2 ☐ Facilities

As of March 31, 2015, eight regional immigration bureaus in the nation are housed in independent office buildings of the Ministry of Justice (Tokyo, Nagoya, and Osaka), joint office buildings of the Ministry of Justice (Sendai, Hiroshima, and Takamatsu), joint office buildings with other national government authorities (Sapporo), and a private facility (Fukuoka) respectively. All of the district immigration offices and the branch offices of regional immigration bureaus are housed either in independent office buildings of the Ministry of Justice (Yokohama), in office buildings jointly with branch offices of port-related national government authorities, in office building jointly with other national government authorities, in airport terminal building, or in other civil or public facilities.

All three detention centers for foreign nationals in the country were completed after the year 1993, which are maintained as independent offices of the Ministry of Justice (Omura) and general offices of the Ministry of Justice (Higashi-Nihon, Nishi-Nihon) (*).
### 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 denial of recognition as a refugee. The number of litigation cases, which were filed and newly accepted in 2014, was 335 in judgments on merits (previous year: 391), a decrease of 56 cases from the previous year (Table 53).

Against the backdrop of the fact that with regard to the reform of the judicial system which intended to ensure prompt court proceedings through proper and sufficient procedures, in particular, on April 1, 2005, the Act for Partial Amendment of the Administrative Litigation Act entered into force for the purpose of developing a more effective remedial procedure for the rights and interests of people in connection with administrative litigation, in order to realize a system to provide information (instruction) on the statute of limitations, etc., extension of the statute of limitations, and simplified and easy-to-understand eligibility for defendants in revocation litigation, etc., and others, the number of newly accepted cases in recent years has remained at a high level. The number of newly accepted cases which saw a significant increase in 2012 peaked in 2013 and then decreased in 2014. The number of completed cases has also remained at a high level in conjunction with the number of newly accepted cases. One reason for this is the fact that 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.

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 issuance and enforcement 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 53 Changes in the number of filed cases of immigration litigation (judgments on merits) (as of the end of 2014)

Category	Year	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Administrative case	Procedures for deportation-related matters (Demand for revocation; confirmation of invalidity, etc.)	172	167	264	334	274
Status of residence examination-related matters (Demand for revocation of the disposition of denial; confirmation of invalidity, etc.)	21	23	17	13	18
Certificate of eligibility (Demand for revocation of the disposition of denial of issuance; confirmation of invalidity, etc.)	15	8	6	6	6
Procedures for refugee status-related matters (Demand for revocation; confirmation of invalidity, etc.)	55	40	46	35	35
Others	5	1	4	1	0
Sub-total	268	239	337	389	333
Civil cases	0	4	3	2	2
Claim for protection of personal liberty	0	0	0	0	0
Total	268	243	340	391	335
Completed litigations	288	214	263	341	380

## Section 2 ☐ Major Court Cases

### Court case 1 [Discretion of the Minister of Justice, etc. in the revocation of the judgment to the effect of there being no grounds for the filing of an objection]

Following a judgment that was rendered as there being no grounds for the filing of an objection pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) of Article 49 of the Immigration Control Act, in response to the change of a newly occurring situation after the judgment was made, the decision on whether or not to revoke the abovementioned judgment … not only has a legal nature which is equivalent to that of a decision on whether or not to grant special permission to stay, but in terms of the nature of the act of revocation based on a situation occurring ex post facto after the legally rendered judgment, it is understood to be left to a broader discretion than the decision of whether or not to grant special permission to stay.

Obviously the benefits of family bonds should be respected in interpreting the Immigration Control Act and considered as an important consideration factor when the Minister of Justice or others make a decision on whether or not to grant special permission to stay. However, the extent to which the family bonds should be considered as important in individual cases should be determined based on the various circumstances of the case such as the family structure, the living conditions, specific circumstances leading to the formation of the family and whether or not there is a need for the family to continue to live in Japan, and therefore, it is appropriate to construe that it is only in cases where the infringement is extremely significant that the decision on whether or not to revoke the judgment may be considered illegal on the grounds of harming the interests of the family bonds.

[Ruling of the Nagoya High Court on January 31, 2014]
that even if the plaintiff is unable to find a place to work in Korea, the minimum amount to live will be guaranteed … and that his working environment and living environment in Japan were not stable, the abovementioned obstacles in the event of the plaintiff returning to South Korea cannot be considered to necessitate that special permission to stay be granted to the plaintiff even taking negative circumstances into consideration.

[Ruling of the Osaka District Court on June 12, 2014]

## Court case 4 [Propriety of claiming illegality in the judgment to the effect that the petition for an objection is without grounds owing to the illegality of the disposition of denial of permission to change the status of residence]

The disposition of denial of permission in this case and the judgment in this case do not have the relationship of procedures and results in pursuit of the same purpose and are not added together to constitute one process comprising one result, and since the illegality of the disposition of denial of permission in this case was already asserted in the litigation for revocation of the disposition of denial of permission in this case itself, the so-called succession of the illegality cannot be allowed, and therefore, it is not possible to assert grounds for illegality of the judgment based on the illegality of the disposition in this case while the disposition of the denial of permission in this case has not been revoked.

Even if the plaintiff’s claims are not intended to say that the disposition of the denial of permission in this case is illegal but simply assert circumstances pertaining to the illegality of the disposition of the denial of permission in this case as circumstances that should be taken into account when making the decision on special permission to stay, the gist of the claim is that it would be difficult for the plaintiff to live without assistance and since there is no one in China to assist the plaintiff, the plaintiff has no choice but to receive assistance from his married younger sister, who is residing in Japan, and has the same purport as the reason in the application made by the plaintiff for a change of the status of residence to “Long-Term Resident” after entry into Japan, and there is no choice but to say that, in essence, judging the propriety of not granting special permission to stay based only on the circumstances pertaining to the abovementioned assertion is no different from examination of the propriety of the disposition of denial of permission in this case.

In this case, ... the Director-General of the Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau made the disposition of denial of permission in this case on the basis of the above circumstances and the disposition is maintained as being legal. Therefore, when the Director-General of the Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau did not grant special permission to stay based on the same circumstances, it is difficult to evaluate this as being illegal unless there are other circumstances indicating that not granting special permission to stay deviated or abused discretionary power.

[Ruling of the Tokyo District Court on September 30, 2014]
# Court case 5 [Applicability of “documents containing false entries” in the procedures for revocation of the status of residence]

In order for foreign nationals to be able to reside in Japan with the status of residence of “Spouse or Child of Japanese National” as prescribed in Appended Table II of the Immigration Control Act as a person with the status of a “spouse of a Japanese national”, it is construed that it is not enough for there to simply be a legally valid relationship of marriage with the Japanese spouse but the activities in which the foreign national is to engage in Japan are required to correspond to the activities as a person with the status of a spouse of a Japanese national. Moreover, in light of the fact that the obligation of the cohabitation of the husband and wife is provided for in the Civil Code of Japan, the existence and aspect of the cohabitation of the husband and wife is, without dispute, one of the important factors in making a decision on whether the activities in which the foreign national intends to engage in Japan correspond to the activities as a person with the status of a spouse of a Japanese national.

Therefore, if the true cohabitation period of the plaintiff and C (a party outside of the litigation) had been given in the application for extension in this case and the written questions, it can be said that such description would have served as an opportunity to implement a further investigation into the actual state of the cohabitation between the plaintiff and C (a party outside of the litigation) ahead of the permission for extension in this case. And if a hearing into the circumstances was conducted with C (a party outside of the litigation) and the plaintiff as part of the investigation, it is possible to say that it would have become clear that the two parties were continuing to live separately, and moreover, the relationship of the two parties lacked the actual state of cohabitation, and taking into account these circumstances, at the time of considering the disposition given to the application for extension in this case, the activities in which the plaintiff intended to engage while in Japan did not corresponded to the activities as a person with the status of the spouse of a Japanese national, and it has to be said that there was a high likelihood of reaching the decision that the plaintiff did not come under the status of residence of “Spouse of Child of Japanese National”. From the above, the application for extension in this case and the written questions correspond to a “document containing false entries” referred to in item (iv) of paragraph (1) of Article 22-4 of the Immigration Control Act, and the plaintiff received permission for extension in this case by submitting these documents.

[Ruling of the Tokyo District Court on October 10, 2014]
### Data Section 5. Statistics

## (1) Changes in the Number of New Arrivals and Mid to Long-Term Residents for the Principal Statuses of Residence by Nationality/Region

1-1 Changes in the number of new arrivals with the status of residence of “Investor/Business Manager” by nationality/region

Nationality/Region	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Total	896	838	820	632	984
China	167	194	215	173	419
R.O.Korea	210	188	179	122	165
United States of America	118	109	94	88	94
Taiwan	42	48	36	32	53
United Kingdom	37	24	29	16	26
France	50	25	30	25	25
Australia	31	18	18	18	22
Germany	20	9	8	20	20
Pakistan	33	42	55	23	18
China (Hong Kong)	7	2	7	7	12
India	12	14	11	8	11
Others	169	165	138	100	119

(*) In accordance with the amendment Act, from April 1, 2015, the status of residence of "Investor/Business Manager" was changed to "Business Manager".

1-2 Changes in the number of mid to long-term residents with the status of residence of “Investor/Business Manager” by nationality/region (People)

Nationality/Region	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Total	10,908	11,778	12,609	13,439	15,184
China	3,300	3,974	4,423	5,057	6,394
Korea	2,723	2,872	2,941	2,918	2,911
Pakistan	571	627	732	759	808
Nepal	373	430	513	585	682
United States of America	918	844	687	654	648
Taiwan	331	460	571
Sri Lanka	234	281	326	339	391
India	319	320	307	301	300
United Kingdom	334	292	244	226	223
Afghanistan	124	149	172	196	222
Others	2,012	1,989	1,933	1,944	2,034

(*1) The numbers are based on the statistics as at the end of December each year (Hereinafter the same applies to the tables relating to the number of mid to long-term residents).

$ ^{*2} $ The numbers until 2011 represent the number of alien registrations, and the numbers from 2012 onwards represent the number of mid to long-term residents (Hereinafter the same applies to the tables relating to the number of mid to long-term residents.).

(*3) “China” until 2011 includes Taiwan, and “China” from 2012 onwards excludes those who were issued the residence cards and special permanent resident certificates and had already been included in “Taiwan” in nationality/region section (Hereinafter the same applies to the tables relating to the number of mid to long-term residents.).

2-1 Changes in the number of new arrivals with the status of residence of “Engineer” by nationality/region

Nationality/Region	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Total	2,852	4,178	5,216	5,387	7,662
China	983	1,375	1,734	1,819	2,495
India	384	651	847	996	1,478
Viet Nam	213	441	802	701	1,116
Philippines	226	354	304	293	510
R.O.Korea	302	361	403	407	478
United States of America	123	148	136	148	171
Myanmar	12	12	33	45	156
Taiwan	75	94	77	102	125
France	95	70	83	80	111
Indonesia	31	104	215	94	109
Others	408	568	582	702	913

(*) In accordance with the amendment Act, from April 1, 2015, the statuses of residence of "Engineer" and "Specialist in Humanities/International Services" were combined into "Engineer/Specialist in Humanities/International Services".
2-2 Changes in the number of mid to long-term residents with the status of residence of “Engineer” by nationality/region

Nationality/Region	Year	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Total	46,592	42,634	42,273	43,038	45,892
China	25,105	22,486	20,924	20,588	20,873
Korea	7,050	5,828	5,367	5,207	5,084
Viet Nam	2,183	2,382	2,985	3,506	4,393
India	3,515	3,175	3,388	3,592	4,172
Philippines	1,968	1,923	1,934	1,937	2,164
United States of America	789	764	786	834	886
Taiwan	-	-	335	551	800
France	588	539	589	621	700
Malaysia	595	613	669	673	697
Indonesia	437	542	662	595	636
Others	4,362	4,382	4,634	4,934	5,487

3-1 Changes in the number of new arrivals with the status of residence of “Specialist in Humanities/International Services” by nationality/region

(People)

Nationality/Region	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Total	4,113	4,658	4,993	5,354	6,608
China	592	728	902	940	1,264
United States of America	986	1,082	1,016	1,092	1,175
R.O.Korea	552	590	603	583	753
Taiwan	186	217	237	246	434
United Kingdom	286	326	304	377	434
Philippines	68	91	119	152	268
Australia	175	185	152	194	203
Viet Nam	49	59	116	134	198
India	97	82	106	115	177
Canada	209	168	153	181	169
Others	913	1,130	1,285	1,340	1,533

(*) In accordance with the amendment Act, from April 1, 2015, the statuses of residence of “Engineer” and “Specialist in Humanities/International Services” were combined into “Engineer/Specialist in Humanities/International Services”.

3-2 Changes in the number of mid to long-term residents with the status of residence of “Specialist in Humanities/International Services” by nationality/region

(People)

Nationality/Region	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Total	68,467	67,854	69,721	72,319	76,902
China	34,433	34,446	33,537	33,323	34,574
Korea	9,233	9,166	9,755	10,100	10,345
United States of America	6,313	6,091	6,157	6,356	6,582
Taiwan	1,367	2,413	3,442
United Kingdom	2,785	2,560	2,469	2,525	2,578
Viet Nam	550	639	807	1,082	1,482
Canada	1,980	1,694	1,541	1,449	1,408
Pakistan	836	1,031	1,251	1,289	1,348
Philippines	940	920	964	1,051	1,290
Australia	1,713	1,497	1,371	1,293	1,254
Others	9,684	9,810	10,502	11,438	12,599

4-1 Changes in the number of new arrivals with the status of residence of “Intra-company Transferee” by nationality/region (People)

Nationality/Region	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Total	5,826	5,348	6,126	6,245	7,209
China	1,937	1,717	1,967	2,085	2,433
India	520	484	505	565	760
Philippines	498	641	669	670	698
R.O.Korea	505	511	491	470	514
United States of America	528	396	383	404	411
Viet Nam	231	178	240	346	399
Thailand	222	235	381	301	361
Indonesia	98	104	221	251	208
Taiwan	211	188	173	169	199
Germany	155	98	125	127	144
Others	921	796	971	857	1,082
4-2 Changes in the number of mid to long-term residents with the status of residence of “Intra-company Transferee” by nationality/region

(People)

Nationality/Region	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Total	16,140	14,636	14,867	15,218	15,378
China	6,238	5,518	5,257	5,405	5,593
Korea	2,079	1,873	1,750	1,697	1,624
India	1,610	1,426	1,340	1,315	1,365
Philippines	777	947	1,023	1,120	1,132
United States of America	1,286	1,072	980	1,054	883
Taiwan	350	454	526
Thailand	430	440	565	525	524
Viet Nam	287	343	415	497	515
Germany	505	377	360	371	389
Indonesia	195	211	313	380	339
Others	2,733	2,429	2,514	2,400	2,488

5-1 Changes in the number of new arrivals with the status of residence of “Entertainer” by nationality/region

Nationality/Region	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Total	28,612	26,112	34,969	37,096	35,253
United States of America	6,785	5,908	6,514	6,341	6,498
R.O.Korea	1,450	3,179	6,528	6,566	5,893
Philippines	1,506	1,407	1,984	2,680	3,149
United Kingdom	3,009	2,474	2,916	3,534	2,920
Russia	1,432	1,452	1,982	1,063	1,519
France	1,116	780	1,320	1,770	1,381
Italy	1,105	1,205	866	1,696	1,348
Germany	1,241	1,358	1,594	1,285	1,333
China	1,386	739	964	1,022	1,070
Spain	515	626	674	866	768
Others	9,067	6,984	9,627	10,273	9,374

5-2 Changes in the number of mid to long-term residents with the status of residence of “Entertainer” by nationality/region (People

Nationality/Region	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Total	9,247	6,265	1,646	1,662	1,967
Philippines	6,319	4,188	344	367	436
United States of America	318	334	288	278	374
Korea	374	313	305	283	262
China	671	389	177	147	126
Brazil	159	140	105	102	114
Australia	88	71	58	58	82
United Kingdom	62	66	29	28	57
Canada	51	77	21	26	52
Thailand	136	95	72	72	51
Ukraine	73	36	15	7	46
Others	996	556	232	294	367

6-1 Changes in the number of new arrivals with the status of residence of "Skilled Labor" by nationality/region

Nationality/Region	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Total	3,588	4,178	4,910	2,030	2,360
Nepal	563	677	809	832	927
India	451	379	432	188	317
China	1,924	2,527	2,920	427	311
Thailand	134	132	162	129	171
Australia	45	27	53	48	72
Philippines	36	53	59	49	64
Viet Nam	39	21	41	31	55
United Kingdom	18	16	21	34	44
R.O.Korea	90	87	109	39	36
Indonesia	31	33	33	19	33
Others	257	226	271	234	330