We held a meeting to exchange opinions regarding special permission to stay in Japan.

In providing support to undocumented immigrants, we have observed that even when a "request for retrial" is filed based on a change in circumstances after a deportation order has been issued, it is difficult to obtain special permission to stay in Japan. Furthermore, in some cases involving parent-child relationships, APFS has received suggestions from the Ministry of Justice to grant special permission to stay only to the child, on the condition that the parent returns to their home country. APFS has confirmed with lawyers and support groups that the situation appears to be similar.

In order to overcome this situation, we gathered lawyers, researchers, and members of support groups who are helping undocumented immigrants in the community to hold an "exchange of opinions" meeting to share a wide range of knowledge.

APFS hosted an "Opinion Exchange Meeting on Special Permission to Stay in Japan" on September 1, 2016, at the Itabashi Ward Green Hall. The venue was filled with lawyers who have dedicated many years to protecting the rights of foreigners through litigation, researchers interested in foreigner issues in Japan, people who support foreigners seeking special permission to stay in Japan, and APFS staff.

At the outset, Mr. Yoshinari, advisor to APFS, explained the purpose of the meeting, stating that given the increasing number of cases in which special permission to stay in Japan is not granted, he wanted to have a lively exchange of opinions on how to address this issue going forward.

Next, APFS Representative Director Kato presented the historical background of special permission to stay in Japan, the trends in the number of permits granted, and the trends in the number of people who remain on provisional release without being granted permission.

The number of people granted special permission to stay in Japan peaked at 13,229 in 2004 and plummeted to 2,023 in 2013. On the other hand, the number of people granted provisional release more than doubled, from 1,618 in 2010 to 3,606 in 2015. Data was presented showing this increase. In addition, a written response to a question submitted in 2013 by then-Senator Kazuyuki Hamada was shown. According to the response, the decision is "left to the Minister of Justice's discretion, which is broader than whether or not to grant special permission to stay in Japan based on the Immigration Control Act (omitted), and there is no intention to use guidelines in making such a decision." This demonstrated the Ministry of Justice's stance that it will not rely on the guidelines it has set out to determine whether or not to grant permission.

Furthermore, it was reported that among APFS's activities since last year, the "parent-child separation issue," which states that "children will be allowed to stay in Japan if their parents return to their home country," has been particularly highlighted, and that after media coverage, it has generated a significant response, both for and against.

Next, lawyer Koichi Kodama presented on "Trends in Court Cases Concerning Special Permission to Stay in Japan," reporting that while there are many lawsuits challenging decisions denying special permission to stay, there are few successful cases. He cited the extremely broad discretion of the Minister of Justice as a major reason for this. However, he noted that, although few in number, since 2001, there have been some cases where, based on the so-called principle of proportionality, the benefits lost by the plaintiff due to deportation have outweighed the benefits gained by the country, resulting in victories. In addition, he cited a Tokyo District Court ruling from November 19, 2003, which stated that "seeking a better life by emigrated to another country is based on natural human feelings, and if it is possible to coexist peacefully with the indigenous people after moving to the other country, such an act is not contrary to human morality," and was awarded a victory. He expressed his intention to continue fighting persistently, given that judges who share this kind of common sense are emerging.

Following the report on special permission to stay in Japan, the following opinions were expressed by the participants:

Researchers offered opinions such as, "Regarding cases where 'the child is okay but the parents are not,' why not proactively advocate for the idea that 'children in undocumented immigration are promising human resources for Japan's future'?", "It's strange that laws and guidelines, which should be universal, are not," "Family divisions, if picked up by overseas media, will damage Japan's image. We should consider various ways to appeal to the public in the future," and "Japan is a signatory to international human rights treaties, yet it is acting in violation of them. The best interests of the child should be considered, but the court's judgment does not adhere to this."

Lawyers offered opinions such as, "Students on provisional release are unable to envision their future while those around them are looking for jobs," "The Immigration Bureau is not complying with the 'guidelines,' treating them as mere 'examples'," "In trials where the government is the defendant, judges also consider their own future 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 an individual complaint mechanism."

The Association for Supporting Families of Illegal Residents offered opinions such as, "We were worried because we couldn't get joint Zaitoku (special visa) for parents and children, but Professor Kodama's talk encouraged us," "We've received a lot of positive feedback on Twitter and other platforms, so we want to use that to our advantage," and "We think all we can do is gather as many petitions and signatures as possible and ask for their support."

APFS members expressed opinions such as, "There is a view that the recent increase in the number of provisional releases is merely a pretense by the Ministry of Justice to show that it is taking humanitarian considerations into account," "There are negative opinions, but can't we turn attention in a positive direction?", and "It is necessary to clarify the criteria for the parent-child barrier and special privileges for Zainichi Koreans."

The meeting concluded after confirming that the exchange of opinions would continue and concrete measures would be considered.