Held an opinion exchange meeting regarding special permission to stay

In providing support to irregular residents, it has been difficult to obtain special permission to stay for the past few years, even if a "petition for reconsideration" is filed based on changes in circumstances after the issuance of a deportation order. In addition, in some cases involving parent-child pairs, the Ministry of Justice has suggested that special permission to stay be granted only to the child, on the condition that the parent returns to their home country. When APFS checked with lawyers, support groups, etc., it appears that the situation is similar.

In order to overcome this situation, we gathered lawyers, researchers, and members of support groups that support undocumented residents in the local area to hold an "opinion exchange meeting" where we shared our wisdom.

APFS hosted an "Opinion Exchange Meeting on Special Permission to Stay" at the Itabashi Ward Green Hall on September 1, 2016. The meeting was attended by a lawyer who has dedicated many years of his life to protecting the rights of foreigners in court, researchers interested in issues related to foreigners in Japan, people who support foreigners seeking special permission to stay, and APFS staff.

At the beginning, APFS Advisor Yoshinari explained the purpose of the forum, saying that in light of the current situation in which cases of special residence permission being denied are increasing, he hoped to have a lively exchange of opinions on how to address this issue going forward.

Next, APFS Representative Director Kato gave a presentation on the historical background of special residence permission, the trends in the number of people granted permission, and the trends in the number of people who have been placed on provisional release without being granted permission.

The number of people granted special permission to stay peaked at 13,229 in 2004, but dropped sharply to 2,023 in 2013, while the number of people granted provisional release more than doubled, from 1,618 in 2010 to 3,606 in 2015. The Ministry of Justice also presented a written response to a question from then Senator Hamada Kazuyuki in 2013. According to the written response, the decision is "left to the discretion of the Minister of Justice, which is broader than whether or not to grant special permission to stay based on the Immigration Control Act (omitted) and we do not intend to use guidelines in making such a decision." This shows the Ministry of Justice's stance of not relying on its own guidelines when granting permission.

Furthermore, in the APFS campaign since last year, the issue of parent-child separation was raised in particular, with the idea that "children should be allowed to stay in Japan if their parents return to their home country." After it was reported in the media, it was reported that there was a huge reaction, both for and against.

Next, Attorney Koichi Kodama introduced "Trends in court cases regarding special residence permits," reporting that although there are many lawsuits to cancel decisions that do not grant special residence permits, there are few cases in which the Minister of Justice has won. He pointed out that the main reason for this is that the Minister of Justice has an extremely broad discretion. However, since 2001, although the number of cases is small, there have been occasional cases in which, based on the so-called proportionality principle, the plaintiff's interests lost through deportation outweigh the interests of the country that would be gained as a result. In addition, a precedent was presented in the Tokyo District Court on November 19, 2003, in which a plaintiff won a case on the grounds that "the desire to emigrate to another country in search of a better life is based on a natural human emotion, and if one can coexist peacefully with the indigenous people after moving to another country, such an act is not against human ethics in any way." As there are now judges who share this common sense of citizenship, he said that he would like to continue to fight tenaciously in the future.

After the report on special residence permits, participants expressed the following opinions:

Researchers offered the following opinions: "In cases where the children are ok but the parents are not, why not actively advocate that irregular migrant children are promising human resources for Japan's future?", "Laws and guidelines should be universal, so it's strange that they aren't.", "If family separation is covered in overseas media, it will damage Japan's image. In the future, we should think of ways to appeal to this public in various ways.", and "Although Japan is a signatory to international human rights treaties, it is violating them. The best interests of the child should be considered, but the courts' decisions are not in line with this."

Lawyers expressed the following opinions: "Student provisional release holders are unable to see their futures while everyone around them is job-hunting," "Immigration Bureau officials are not following the 'Guidelines', claiming that they are merely 'examples,'" "In cases where the state is the defendant, judges also have to consider their own futures within the bureaucratic system," and "In order to ensure compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is necessary to ensure compliance with the Optional Protocol, which includes a system for individual complaints."

The Association for Supporting Irregular Immigrant Families expressed opinions such as, "We were worried about not being able to receive Zaitoku for both parent and child, but Dr. Kodama's talk was encouraging," "There has been a reaction on Twitter and elsewhere, so we want to turn it into a positive," and "I think the only thing we can do is to collect as many petitions and signatures as possible and make a request."

APFS members expressed opinions such as, "Some see the recent increase in the number of people on provisional release as a pose by the Ministry of Justice to show humanitarian considerations," "There are negative opinions, but can't we redirect attention in a positive direction?" and "It is necessary to make the parent-child barrier and the criteria for Zaitoku status clear."

The meeting was adjourned with the understanding that the exchange of opinions would continue and concrete measures would be considered.