Kaoru Miyatake
Author Kaoru Miyatake Gyoseishoshi / Juris Doctor (J.D.) | MOJ-Certified Application Agent Chairperson, Sakura Training Organization (Public Interest Corporation) / Sakura Central Legal Office

The Immigration Services Agency (ISA) finalized the “Guidelines on Revocation of the Status of Residence of Permanent Residents,” dated October 1, 2026. It is the final version of the draft guidelines published on August 4, and the ISA page states that they will be applied from April 1, 2027 (Reiwa 9). They set out how to interpret the grounds for revocation added by the 2024 amendment of the Immigration Control Act (Article 22-4(1)(viii) and (ix)) and how to decide between revocation and an “ex officio change of status.”

Framework Set Out by the ISA

📌 Basic framework
  • Date of formulation: October 1, 2026. Start of operation: April 1, 2027
  • Even if a ground applies, the rule is an ex officio change rather than revocation: unless the person is found unsuitable to remain in Japan, the Minister of Justice permits a change of the status of residence to one other than “Permanent Resident” on the Minister’s own authority (Article 22-6). In most cases a change to “Long-Term Resident” is expected
  • After the change: the person may obtain permanent residence again if the requirements are met
  • Purpose: following the supplementary resolutions to the amending Act (judge individual circumstances strictly so as not to unduly harm permanent residents already settled in Japan, and prepare guidelines with specific examples), to ensure predictability and fairness of dispositions

The Three Grounds and the ISA’s Interpretation

(1) Failing to comply with obligations under the Act (item viii)

  • The obligations covered are those backed by penalties in Chapter IX of the Act that are not grounds for deportation, for example carrying and presenting the residence card (Article 23) and not forging or altering residence cards (Article 73-3)
  • There is no violation where there is a “justifiable reason” such as illness or disaster. On the other hand, a violation through negligence can still fall under the ground
  • Forgetting to renew or reissue a residence card, or carelessly not carrying it, can fall under the ground, but the guidelines state that revocation on the basis of a single failure alone is not envisaged
  • For using a forged card or harboring illegal entrants, which are grounds for deportation once completed, the ground applies to attempts

(2) Intentionally not paying public taxes and charges (item viii)

  • “Public taxes” means taxes in general (income tax, resident tax, corporate tax, property tax, etc.), and “public charges” means public burdens other than taxes (public health insurance premiums, public pension premiums, etc.). Fees and usage charges, and fines or non-penal fines (such as traffic fines), are not included
  • “Intentionally” means not paying although aware of the obligation. Considering income and assets, the number, amount and period of arrears, the circumstances and later conduct, the ground is thought to apply where an unwillingness to pay is clear. It also covers failing to file a return when filing is clearly required
  • It may also apply where a permanent resident is substantially involved in running or managing a company, is aware of its obligation to pay public charges, and deliberately does not pay
  • Examples expected to apply: long-term arrears with moving away without notifying the municipality; showing no intention to pay despite repeated demands and enforcement; repeatedly missing deadlines for installment or deferral arrangements; conviction for tax evasion; concealing assets to avoid collection
  • Examples not expected to apply: inability to pay due to illness, disaster or unemployment; showing willingness to pay after demands and being on installments or deferral; receiving measures equivalent to public assistance; the employer failing to pay amounts deducted from salary
  • The amount of arrears is considered, but no uniform standard is set. Intentional non-payment after permanent residence was granted but before the amended Act took effect also counts if found afterwards, but the status is not revoked immediately on circumstances at a single point before the effective date

(3) Imprisonment for specified criminal offences (item ix)

  • Only offences listed in item ix, all intentional, such as trespass into a residence, document forgery, gambling, homicide, injury, arrest and confinement, theft, robbery, fraud, extortion and receiving stolen goods under the Penal Code, and dangerous driving causing death or injury
  • The length of the sentence does not matter, and a suspended sentence is included

When Is Status Actually Revoked?

The decision considers the circumstances, subsequent residence and the person’s intention to stay. Status is revoked only where the person is found unsuitable to remain in Japan; otherwise it is changed ex officio. The guidelines indicate the following.

  • Obligation violations (item viii): where it is clear the person will not perform the obligations in future, or the violation is socially unacceptable — for example, repeatedly not carrying/presenting or renewing the card despite guidance, trying to use a forged card, or trying to help illegal entrants escape
  • Non-payment of public charges (item viii): where it is clear the person will not pay in future, or the arrears are socially unacceptable — for example, an unwillingness to pay shown by words and conduct (not merely lack of means), repeated arrears in the past, or conviction for tax evasion
  • Criminal offences (item ix): where a criminal tendency is found to have advanced — for example, a prison sentence for an offence in item ix after permanent residence was granted (including before the amended Act took effect) on top of an earlier prison sentence. For a first offence, even with a suspended sentence, an ex officio change is expected
  • Even where revocation would be appropriate, an ex officio change may be chosen out of consideration for family ties or humanitarian reasons

Reports by National and Local Government Officials

National or local government officials who, in the course of their duties, come to suspect that a foreign national falls under a ground for revocation may report to the immigration authorities (Article 62-2). Reporting is not mandatory, and the provision serves as a legal basis for lifting confidentiality duties. A report does not by itself mean a ground applies; the decision follows an investigation and a hearing of the person concerned. For public charges, a report is possible where facts learned during demands and enforcement suggest that an unwillingness to pay may be clear.

Relation to the Liberal Democratic Party’s Proposals

In its proposal of January 20, 2026, the LDP’s Headquarters for Foreign Nationals Policy said the guidelines on revoking permanent resident status should be properly formulated and the necessary preparations made for the start of operation. Its Second Proposal (June 9, 2026) noted that the guidelines were being drawn up because the amended Immigration Act takes effect in April 2027, and said further study should proceed, including expanding the scope of grounds for revocation in light of how the amended Act is applied.

These are party proposals; no expansion of the grounds has been decided by the government. The ISA’s guidelines interpret the existing grounds in Article 22-4(1)(viii) and (ix) and do not expand them. Separately, the LDP website explained on October 29, 2026 that the permanent residence guidelines revised on October 1 were based on the party’s proposals (that article does not mention the revocation guidelines).

Practical Points (including the scrivener’s view)

  • Operation starts on April 1, 2027. The guidelines make clear that an ex officio change is considered before revocation, so facts that might fall under a ground do not necessarily mean immediate loss of permanent residence
  • As everyday preparation, check payment of resident tax, health insurance and pension premiums, and check the residence card’s validity, carrying and change-of-address notifications. If paying is difficult, consulting the payment office early and using installment or deferral arrangements matches the guidelines’ “not applicable” examples
  • Permanent residents involved in running a company may also be examined on the company’s tax and social insurance payments
  • Whether an individual case falls under a ground, and whether status is revoked or changed, depends on the individual circumstances. If you are concerned, organize the facts and consult a specialist. See our residence status guide

Sources