Hello!
👔 I’m Hiroshi Kawana, a certified immigration lawyer (Gyoseishoshi).
Today, I’d like to talk about a very important court decision 🧠📚
This ruling set a major standard for how administrative decisions are judged ⚖️✨
The court decided that once an administrative authority publicly sets a standard for making decisions, if it makes a decision that does not follow that standard, that decision can be subject to a lawsuit. In other words, once a standard is made public, it has legal force and must be followed by the administration 📌📜
This ruling also clarified how much “interest to sue” (standing) is required to bring a legal case.
But most importantly, we need to think about how this case applies to immigration law 👀🗂️
Before talking about that, please note:
This court ruling is based on Article 12, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Procedure Act 📘📖
📝 Administrative Procedure Act – Article 12, Paragraph 1
“If an application meets the legal requirements, the administrative office cannot refuse it.”
This is the basic rule 📄🖊️
But actually, Japan’s Immigration Law does not follow this rule ❌✈️
Here is why 👇
🧾 Administrative Procedure Act – Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 3
“The Act does not apply to procedures related to entry, residence, or refugee status of foreigners under the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act or similar laws.”
So immigration law is excluded from Article 12 of the Administrative Procedure Act 🚫📕
Why is that?
Because immigration control is seen as a part of the nation’s sovereign power, meaning that the government is given wide discretion when making decisions 🇯🇵🎌
So it is treated differently from ordinary administrative procedures.
But here’s the question:
Is it really okay to completely exclude the March 3, 2015 Supreme Court ruling from immigration procedures? 🤔💭
That ruling clearly says:
Once a government office sets a public standard for decisions, it must follow it 🧭📏
If that logic does not apply to immigration, it would mean that immigration officers don’t have to follow the guidelines they publish 🌀
That feels unfair.
Even though immigration law is excluded under Article 3, there are still guidelines like:
-
“Guidelines for Changing Residency Status”
-
“Guidelines for Extending Period of Stay”
These are, in a way, decision standards too.
So it is not strange to think that the March 3, 2015 ruling should apply to them 🗃️👓
However, a later court case — Osaka High Court on October 29, 2020 — decided that the immigration law is not subject to the 2015 Supreme Court ruling 📚🛑
I’m not trying to draw a quick conclusion.
It’s true that immigration officers have wide discretion.
But still, if the standards are unclear, that can lead to serious disadvantages for foreign residents 🌐💦
It’s a difficult issue, but I believe it’s important to think about these rules with objectivity and fairness 🧩💬
That’s all for today. See you next time! 👋😄
📚 Reference:
Yasushi Yamawaki (2020)
“Practical Guide to Immigration Law and Foreign Worker Management & Auditing”
Published by Nihon Kajyo Publishing
📣 You can also contact us via LINE!
📱 Feel free to add us as a friend 👇
🔗 https://lin.ee/9jrPDizj