Statement Opposing the Government’s "Zero Illegal Foreign Residents Plan for the Safety and Security of People in Japan" That Goes Against International Human Rights Law
On May 23, 2025, the Immigration Services Agency issued the "Zero Illegal Foreign Residents Plan for the Safety and Security of People in Japan" (the "Plan").
According to comments from the Minister of Justice at a news conference held on the same day, the Plan presents the measures to be implemented in three stages comprising "immigration control," "residency management/refugee examination," and "departure/deportation" to expedite the deportation of "foreign nationals who do not follow rules, including those who repeatedly misuse or abuse the refugee recognition application process." The Minister said that the Plan was compiled in response to raising concerns among Japanese citizens about such foreign nationals covered in news reports and other media.
The Plan was formulated based on a perception that "illegal foreign residents" living in Japan are "foreign nationals who do not follow rules" and "causing a great concern to the safety and security of people in Japan." However, this perception does not reflect the reality that there are many foreign nationals living in Japan who cannot acquire residence status due to not being adequately protected under the current system in Japan, which will be explained in a later section of this statement. This is a highly problematic policy as it has measures that do not resolve serious issues regarding the country’s refugee recognition and deportation procedures in light of the Constitution and international human rights law and could result in excluding foreign nationals who should be duly protected.
Firstly, from the perspective of building a multicultural convivial society where people with diverse opinions, attitudes and values are expected to live their lives together while recognizing each other’s cultural differences and building equal relationships, saying that Japan has a social situation where the safety and security of people in Japan is under threat attributing to only foreign nationals for the vague and ambiguous reason that they "do not follow rules" is likely to cause anxiety, prejudice, and discrimination against foreign nationals and goes against the principle of multicultural coexistence. This could lead to introducing a false perception that "the presence of illegal foreign residents causes the public safety to deteriorate" and allowing it to take root in society.
Secondly, with regard to categorizing refugee recognition application cases into four types, types A through D, based on the contents of the applications form and other factors in the examination of applications, the Plan states that, for the purpose of preventing the misuse or abuse of refugee status recognition applications, the government will introduce classifying certain applications as Category B (cases where the applicant alleges circumstances that clearly do not fall under persecution under the Refugee Convention) based on the country of origin information and other relevant information to restrict the residence of the applicants and process such cases early and promptly. However, it is not always possible for an applicant to make a sufficient argument to support their case from the beginning. In one specific example, a person, who was unable to apply for refugee status at an airport and taken into detention, applied for refugee status while being detained, but their application was rejected within a month; the person requested an administrative review but was never interviewed because "no grounds are included in their application to prove the person is a refugee". However, they subsequently received refugee status by a judgement handed down by the Osaka District Court on March 15, 2023. Under Japan’s refugee recognition practice, which does not guarantee due process such as gathering fair and appropriate country of origin information and providing the applicants an opportunity to make a counterargument and explanation through the disclosure of such information, determining that an applicant is misusing or abusing the refugee recognition application process based on limited information, such as country of origin information, could significantly restrict the status and rights of the asylum seekers and result in excluding those who should be protected, which constitute a violation of international human rights law.
Furthermore, the Plan states that the government will carry out publicly-funded and escort officer-accompanied deportations in a systematic and consistent manner, mainly of third-time and subsequent refugee applicants, in accordance with the 2023 amendment of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act which excluded such applicants from the scope of the suspensive effect on deportation. However, there were two cases in 2024 where an applicant who was previously denied refugee status three times was ultimately recognized as a refugee by judgements handed down by the Nagoya High Court on January 25, 2024 and by the Tokyo District Court on October 24, 2024, respectively. Under Japan’s current refugee recognition practice, which does not guarantee the appropriateness and transparency of the refugee recognition procedure (by means such as the presence of attorneys and others during interviews, the disclosure of written statements and the audio and video recording of the interviews), it is impossible to rule out the possibility that third-time and subsequent applicants can be recognized as refugees. Promoting the deportation of such applicants to their home country, where they are highly likely to be subject to serious physical and mental harm, could constitute a fundamental human rights violation.
In addition, with regard to irregular migrants already in the country, the Plan only outlines measures for their departure and deportation. However, some of them ended up not being able to acquire residence status or losing their residence status for reasons not attributable to themselves, such as falling victim to human trafficking or domestic violence. Japan’s insufficient compliance with international human rights law, including the principle of non-refoulement, the rights of the child, and the right of family unity, is causing such residents to live in the country without residence status for a prolonged period. For example, some of such residents think in Japanese, have grown accustomed to the Japanese culture, and have lived in the Japanese society, because they were born in Japan and have never been to their home country or came to Japan with their parents at a young age and have never returned home, while there are some other such residents who have established a family by marrying a Japanese national or legal foreign resident and become integrated into the Japanese society. The Plan will expose these irregular migrants to the risk of being deported to their home country where they cannot speak the local language, have no relatives or acquaintances, or no means of making a living. To eliminate such cases of irregular residency, it is imperative to legalize them through the protection of rights in compliance with international human rights law.
The Plan claims to carry out the "deportation of dangerous foreign nationals who are a threat to the safety and security of Japanese citizens." However, in reality, it is highly likely that the Plan will infringe on the human rights of those who pose no such threat and should be protected, which constitutes a violation of international human rights law.
The Japan Federation of Bar Associations opposes the Plan that goes against international human rights law and is determined to continue to work on eliminating discrimination based on prejudice toward realizing a society of harmonious coexistence where the right to equality is guaranteed.
July 22, 2025
Reiko Fuchigami
President, Japan Federation of Bar Associations