KUALA LUMPUR - Japan’s Immigration Services Agency plans to abolish advance notifications to lawyers ahead of forced deportations later this year, arguing that the system has undermined enforcement by allowing some foreign nationals to evade removal, according to the Yomiuri Shimbun. 

Under Japan’s Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, foreign nationals who overstay their visas or enter the country illegally may be forcibly deported to their home countries or elsewhere.

As of January 2025, Immigration Services Agency reports, the number of illegal overstayers stood at approximately 74,800, while around 7,600 people were deported in 2024.

In cases of forced deportation, the practice known as ‘lawyer notification,’ under which lawyers are informed in advance of the scheduled deportation date, is not stipulated in the Act.

Rather, it has become established as an administrative practice based on an agreement between the Ministry of Justice, through the Immigration Services Agency, and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA).

According to JFBA position papers and related documents, the practice was developed from the 2000s onward in response to repeated cases in which deportations were carried out without prior notice to the individual or their legal representative, effectively making it impossible to file objections or seek stays of execution.

The system was thus shaped from a human rights perspective to ensure procedural fairness.

Bar associations and support groups have pointed to past cases in which deportations were enforced during appeal periods, with individuals removed without being able to contact their lawyers. 

One notable case highlighting these concerns emerged in 2021, when the Tokyo High Court ruled that the forced deportation of two Sri Lankan asylum seekers, carried out without giving them sufficient time to seek judicial review, violated their constitutional right to access the courts.

The court found that the deportations were executed with little advance notice and without meaningful access to legal counsel, and ordered the government to pay compensation. The ruling later became final after the state declined to appeal.

As a result, advance notification has been regarded as a minimum procedural safeguard necessary to meaningfully secure the right to appeal.

Meanwhile, the government has argued that advance notification has led to cases in which individuals abscond prior to deportation.

Against this backdrop, the Immigration Services Agency has begun consultations with the JFBA on revising the rules and has informed the group of its intention to scrap the advance notification to lawyers.