Draft Permanent Residency Guideline | Final Version Published Oct 1

What is examined in the Permanent Residency review—a document outlining these “standards” was published in draft form on August 4, 2026. This is part of the “Public comment on the optimization of ‘Permanent Resident'” by the Immigration Services Agency, covering two items: the draft revision of the Guideline for Permanent Residency and the draft Guideline for Revocation of Status of Residence for Permanent Residents. The comment period closed at 0:00 AM on September 4, 2026. Consideration factors such as household income, 30 years’ equivalent of Employees’ Pension, Japanese proficiency B1, and school enrollment for school-aged children were listed for the first time in an official document. We will organize the contents of the draft from primary sources for foreign nationals themselves and HR professionals at companies.

The stage reported as of July 2026 was covered in “Proposed Stricter Permanent Residency Requirements | Explaining 30 Years of Employees’ Pension and Current Requirements“. This article serves as a follow-up, providing an explanation based on the original draft published by the Immigration Services Agency, not on media reports. For the current requirements themselves, please refer to “Permanent Residency Requirements and Necessary Documents“.

---

1. Conclusion: The Comment Period Has Closed, and the Content Is Still a “Draft”

First, let’s summarize the key points in three items.

The requirements for Permanent Residency are stipulated in Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Immigration Control Act. A Guideline is not the law itself, but a document that outlines the basic principles regarding factors to be considered during the review process. The draft itself states that “this Guideline merely describes the basic principles regarding factors to be considered during the review,” and that individual cases will be judged by comprehensively considering various circumstances.

2. Two “Drafts” Have Been Published

This public comment period involves two documents of different natures released simultaneously. One concerns “obtaining” Permanent Residency, and the other concerns “losing” Permanent Resident status. As they can be easily confused, please understand them separately first.

Item	① Draft Revision of the Guideline for Permanent Residency	② Draft Guideline for Revocation of Status of Residence for Permanent Residents
Scenario Addressed	When applying for Permanent Residency (Acquisition)	When a Permanent Resident may have their status revoked (Maintenance)
Relevant Article	Immigration Control Act Article 22	Immigration Control Act Article 22-4
e-Gov Case Number	315000140	315000141
Draft Publication Date	August 4, 2026	August 4, 2026
Submission Deadline	September 4, 2026, 0:00 AM	September 4, 2026, 0:00 AM
Nature of Procedure	Voluntary Public Comment	Voluntary Public Comment

In both cases, the “Is this a procedure based on the Administrative Procedure Act?” column states “Voluntary Public Comment”. Since these are the formulation/revision of Guidelines rather than laws themselves, comments are solicited voluntarily rather than as a legal obligation.

These two are not unrelated. Document ② is in response to the addition of grounds for revocation of Permanent Resident status in the 2024 Immigration Control Act Amendment, etc. (Act No. 60 of 2024; promulgated on June 21, 2024, and enforced on April 1, 2027, with the exception of some provisions). The revision of document ① is also structured around the same date of April 1, 2027. This can be interpreted as an attempt to simultaneously align the “entry review” and “maintenance after entry”.

3. The Positioning of “Permanent Resident” Has Been Clearly Defined for the First Time

What first catches the eye in the draft revision is the general overview section at the beginning, rather than the numerical standards. The Status of Residence of “Permanent Resident” has been positioned as follows:

Being the most stable legal status with no restrictions on activities or Period of Stay, and as it is assumed that the individual will spend the rest of their life with their base of living in Japan, particularly careful review is necessary when deciding whether to grant Permanent Residency.

Guideline for Permanent Residency (Draft) Part 1, Section 1 (Immigration Services Agency)

The sentence “particularly careful review is necessary” has been placed in the main text of the Guideline. It is also stated that the decision on Permanent Residency is based on the broad discretion of the Minister of Justice, and the scope of that discretionary power is extremely wide.

However, the draft is not solely focused on stricter measures. In the same general overview, it positions becoming a Permanent Resident, with no restrictions on activities or period, as an “incentive to attract foreign talent who are expected to contribute to the development of our country,” and states that it also contributes to international competition for talent acquisition. It is also clearly stated that the purpose of the Guideline is to enhance predictability.

4. Independent Livelihood Requirement – Income and Pension

The requirements for Permission for Permanent Residence, as stipulated in Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Act, are three: ① Good Conduct Requirement, ② Independent Livelihood Requirement, and ③ National Interest Requirement. Among these, the Good Conduct Requirement is stated as having “no particular changes” in the summary document, maintaining the conventional approach of “living a life that complies with laws and is not socially criticized as a resident in daily life.”

The Independent Livelihood Requirement has been significantly revised. The draft states that “it is necessary to be recognized as capable of self-support now and in the future, and economic conditions equivalent to or higher than those of Japanese nationals are required.” It explicitly states that this requirement will be reviewed, in principle, on a household unit basis sharing the same livelihood.

4-1. Income – Reviewed by “Household Income”

The draft considers whether the household income to which the applicant belongs at the time of application has continuously reached “a level exceeding the average income of Japanese households according to the number of household members” (“income standard” as referred to in the draft). A household here refers to “a group of people sharing a residence and household finances.”

Detailed rules are set for the method of aggregation, which is the part most likely to cause misunderstanding in practice.

Scenario	Treatment in the Draft
Single-person household	The applicant’s income becomes the household income as is.
Income of persons forming a household sharing the same livelihood	In principle, aggregated.
Persons who are adults and no longer dependent on their parents	The parents’ income is not included; it is checked whether the person themselves has reached the income standard.
Income of persons with a Status of Residence not for work, such as “Dependent”	Since it is merely exceptional and limited income due to Permission to Engage in Activity Other than that Permitted under the Status of Residence, it is not aggregated into household income.
Dependents of the applicant (including relatives living abroad)	Even if not cohabiting, they are added to the number of household members.
5 or more household members	Judgment is made after adding the increased amount for living expenses, etc., to the income standard amount.

Particular attention should be paid to the last two rows. If a Spouse is working under “Dependent,” their income cannot be added to the household income, while dependents, even if living abroad, are counted in the number of household members. As the number of household members increases, the required income standard also rises, so the perception can change significantly depending on the family structure.

Furthermore, the draft notes that “Technical Intern Training,” “Nurturing and Work,” “Specified Skilled Worker (i),” “Intra-company Transferee,” and some “Designated Activities” are excluded from “Status of Residence for the purpose of work” here.

4-2. Pension – “Equivalent to 30 years” is newly added

What was newly added in the draft is the consideration of pension. The structure is to check whether the estimated future pension benefit amount, estimated from the age at the time of application, pension enrollment status for all eligible enrollment periods, and income at the time of application, etc., has reached “the estimated future pension benefit amount if one worked for 30 years at the income standard and was enrolled in employees’ pension during that period” (“pension benefit standard” as referred to in the draft).

However, it is not written that it will be immediately denied if it does not reach. The draft includes the following relaxations:

• Even if the estimated benefit amount does not reach the pension benefit standard, if financial assets capable of supplementing the insufficient living expenses (“supplementary assets” as referred to in the draft) are recognized as existing, it will be evaluated as having reached the standard.
• The standard for supplementary asset amount will be based on the age at the time of application, and considering that younger individuals can form assets over a longer period, the standard will be lower for younger applicants.
• If there is a Spouse, the estimated benefit amounts of the applicant and the Spouse are aggregated and compared with the aggregated amount including the estimated benefit amount receivable if the Spouse was a Category 3 insured person of the National Pension during the same period. The supplementary asset amount will also be added accordingly.

The figure “30 years of employees’ pension” tends to be misunderstood on its own, but the actual structure of the draft is not “one must have been enrolled for 30 years,” but rather “whether the estimated benefit amount is equivalent to 30 years (if not, it can be supplemented with assets).” This is an easy point to misinterpret.

5. Additional Consideration Factors for the National Interest Requirement

Regarding the third National Interest Requirement, the draft went further, stating that “it is necessary that the Permanent Residence of the foreign national not merely be passively not contrary to the national interest, but actively and concretely bring benefits to Japan.” Furthermore, it organizes the consideration factors into 11 items. In addition to those traditionally observed in reviews (compliance with obligations, payment of public dues and taxes, violations of criminal laws, residence history, etc.), the following four are central to the new aspects:

Consideration Factor	Content of the Draft
Not becoming a public burden	Even for categories where the Independent Livelihood Requirement is not necessary (Spouse or Child of Japanese National, Permanent Resident, or Special Permanent Resident, refugees, etc.), a negative evaluation may be given if they are currently a public burden, or if there is a realistic risk of becoming one and no special circumstances are recognized.
Japanese proficiency	Consideration of whether the applicant possesses B1 equivalent level or higher as per “The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment” (Report by the National Language Council, Agency for Cultural Affairs, October 12, Reiwa 3).
Understanding of Japan’s systems and rules, etc.	Understanding will be confirmed, focusing on matters described in the “Living and Working Guidebook,” by methods designated by the Commissioner of the Immigration Services Agency, and consideration will be given to whether a certain standard has been reached.
School attendance of school-age children	If the applicant is a parent raising a school-age child (during compulsory education), that child must be attending elementary or junior high school. If the applicant themselves is of school age, their school attendance.

Exceptions are provided for Japanese proficiency. In the draft, for Highly Skilled Professionals and their families, those who have received primary or secondary education as stipulated by the School Education Act for a cumulative total of 6 years or more, and children of Permanent Residents (limited to cases where the parent raising the child has Japanese proficiency of B1 equivalent level or higher, and the child was born in Japan), etc., it is stated that it is not necessarily appropriate or necessary to require the individual to have a B1 equivalent level, and thus it will not be a consideration factor.

Furthermore, specific guidelines regarding the history of residence were outlined. As a general rule, continuous residence for 10 years or more, including 5 years or more under a Status of Residence for work or residence, and currently residing with the longest Period of Stay permitted under the current Status of Residence, are considered factors. In addition, if, within the past 10 years from the time of application, there has been a period of absence from Japan for six months or more due to a single departure without reasonable grounds, or a cumulative absence of two years and six months or more, it will, in principle, be negatively evaluated.

6. Extension of the Special Provision for the Principle of 10 Years of Residence

There is an exception to the “principle of 10 years of residence” for Permanent Residency, allowing spouses and others to apply even with a shorter Period of Stay. In the draft, the duration of this special provision has been extended.

Category	Current Guideline	Revised Draft
Spouse or Child of Japanese National, Permanent Resident, or Special Permanent Resident	Marital life with substance for 3 years or more + continuous residence for 1 year or more	Marital life for 5 years or more + continuous residence for 3 years or more
Their biological child, etc.	Continuous residence for 1 year or more	Continuous residence for 3 years or more
Long-Term Resident	Continuous residence for 5 years or more	Continuous residence for 5 years or more (no change)
Recognized Refugee or Complementary Protection Recipient	Continuous residence for 5 years or more after recognition	Continuous residence for 5 years or more after recognition (no change)
Highly Skilled Professional with 70 points or more	3 years	3 years (no change)
Highly Skilled Professional with 80 points or more / Special Highly Skilled Professional	1 year	1 year (no change)

The first and second rows have a significant impact. If the special provision for spouses is extended from “3 years of marriage and 1 year of residence” to “5 years of marriage and 3 years of residence,” the timing for when applications can be made will effectively be pushed back. There are no changes to the special provisions for Highly Skilled Professionals (1 year / 3 years).

Additionally, the draft states that the guideline regarding “contribution to Japan” will be abolished, and its content will be reorganized as special provisions within this guideline (such as commendations, international awards, executive experience in listed companies, top finishers in sports competitions, etc.).

7. Effective Date – Some Parts Not Waiting Until April 2027

This is the most important point to note in this article. “Part 6 Effective Date” of the draft states the following:

In other words, the parts related to income are designed to apply without waiting until April 2027, and also to “applications already submitted and under review.” Although the revision date is left blank as “Reiwa 8 (2026) Month Day” in the draft text, the accompanying summary document states “From April 2027 (elements related to income will be enforced in October of this year).”

Therefore, if the draft proceeds as planned, even for Permanent Residency Applications currently under review, the new approach regarding income and public burden may be applied. Please note that it is not necessarily the case that “if you submit it before April 2027, it will be handled as before.” However, the revision date itself has not yet been finalized, and future announcements need to be confirmed.

Additionally, transitional measures regarding the Period of Stay have been established. The draft states that for Permanent Residency Applications submitted by March 31, 2027, individuals with a Period of Stay of “3 years” will also be treated as “residing with the longest Period of Stay.” After April 1, 2027, this limited treatment will only apply if the individual has a Period of Stay of “3 years” as of March 31, 2027, their application is the first application on or after that date, and they receive a decision between that date and the expiration of their “3-year” Period of Stay.

8. Another Draft: Guidelines for Revocation of Permanent Resident Status of Residence

The second draft concerns individuals who are already Permanent Residents. With the 2024 amendment, items 8 and 9 were added to Article 22-4, Paragraph 1 of the Immigration Control Act, establishing the following grounds for revocation for Permanent Residents. For an overall understanding of the system, please also refer to “Easy Explanation of the Permanent Residency Revocation System.”

Item	Grounds for Revocation	Approach in the Draft
Item 8	Failure to comply with obligations stipulated in the Immigration Control Act	Obligations to carry and present a Residence Card, apply for renewal or reissuance of its validity period, etc. However, this does not apply if there are “justifiable reasons” such as illness, disaster, or other circumstances.
Item 8	Intentional non-payment of public dues and taxes	Cases where payment is deliberately withheld despite awareness of the payment obligation. This applies when, after comprehensive consideration, it is deemed clear that there is no intention to pay.
Item 9	Sentenced to imprisonment for violating specific criminal laws and regulations	Listed crimes such as theft, fraud, extortion, murder, dangerous driving resulting in death or injury. All are subject to intentional offenses, and include suspended sentences regardless of the length of the term.

8-1. Definition of “Intentionally Failing to Pay Public Dues and Taxes”

This is the most anticipated part. The proposal specifically lists applicable and non-applicable cases, distinguishing between mere delinquency and “intent.”

Cases Assumed to Be Applicable	Cases Assumed Not to Be Applicable
Long-term delinquency, becoming untraceable due to relocation without notification, etc.	Inability to pay due to unavoidable circumstances such as illness, disaster, or unemployment
Repeated demands and delinquency procedures have been carried out, but the intention to pay is still not clear	Showing willingness to pay in response to demands, etc., and receiving installment payment or deferment measures
Repeatedly failing to pay by the deadline for installment payment or deferment agreements	Receiving measures equivalent to public assistance
Convicted of tax evasion, etc. / Fraudulent acts such as concealment of assets that hinder collection	Public dues and taxes are deducted from salary, but the affiliated company has not paid them

As examples for the right column, the proposal mentions business downturns, income fluctuations due to infectious disease outbreaks or disasters, difficulties in living due to domestic violence, and resignation due to harassment in the workplace, among others. It can be read that the idea of evaluating “unable to pay” and “unwilling to pay” separately is indicated.

Furthermore, the proposal clearly states that “public dues and taxes” do not include fees, usage charges, fines, or administrative penalties. Fines and penalties for traffic violations are given as examples, and these are not subject to revocation. It is also stated that no uniform standard will be set for the amount of delinquency, etc.

8-2. Revocation or Ex Officio Change

Even if a ground for revocation applies, it is not a system that immediately requires repatriation. Under Article 22-6 of the Immigration Control Act, unless it is deemed inappropriate for the individual to continue residing in Japan, the Minister of Justice is to permit a change to a Status of Residence other than Permanent Resident ex officio (ex officio change).

• The proposal states that, in the case of an ex officio change, a change to Long-Term Resident is assumed in most cases.
• It is clearly stated that if the requirements for Permanent Residency are met after an ex officio change, it is possible to obtain Permanent Residency again.
• Regarding cases such as forgetting to carry a Residence Card once, the proposal states that “revocation of Status of Residence is not envisioned solely based on a single instance of non-fulfillment of that obligation.”
• Even if it is determined that revocation is appropriate, if there is a need for consideration of family relationships or humanitarian grounds, it may be possible to change the status ex officio instead of revoking it.

Regarding the provisions for notification by national and local government officials (Article 62-2 of the Immigration Control Act), the proposal clearly states that notification is not mandatory, and that a notification does not immediately lead to a determination that a ground for revocation applies, but rather the Minister of Justice will make a decision after investigating the facts and hearing opinions from the individual concerned.

9. Impact and What You Can Do Now

9-1. For Foreign Nationals

As this is still at the proposal stage, there is no need to rush to change anything now. However, if it is finalized, the following points will become effective.

1. Arrange the payment status of public dues and taxes. Taxes and social insurance premiums are common items considered for both acquisition (consideration for national interest requirements) and maintenance (grounds for revocation). If there are delinquencies, it is meaningful in the context of the proposal’s approach to consult for installment payments or deferment and keep records, rather than leaving them unaddressed.
2. Confirm Residence Card related obligations. This includes renewal of the validity period, notification of place of residence, and carrying/presenting the card. While it is stated that immediate revocation is not envisioned for a single instance of forgetting, repeated instances are different.
3. Those who have already applied should pay attention to the treatment of “income”. As stated in §7, the part concerning income and public burden is proposed to apply to cases already under application on the revision date.
4. Those planning their application timing under the spouse’s special provisions should factor in the possibility of extension. If you are scheduling based on 3 years of marriage and 1 year of residence, a review will be necessary if the proposal is adopted as is.
5. Confirm school enrollment for school-aged children. The proposal lists a child attending elementary or junior high school as a consideration factor.

9-2. For HR Professionals at Companies

While Permanent Residency is a procedure for the individual, the content of the proposal has points of contact with employment practices.

• Proper enrollment and payment of social insurance affect both the acquisition and maintenance of Permanent Residency for employees. The proposal states that if social insurance is deducted from salary but the company does not pay it, it does not constitute a ground for revocation for the individual; however, the premise is to avoid creating such a situation in the first place.
• Annual income standards are on a household basis. If accompanying family members hold a “Dependent” Status of Residence, their income is not added to the household income, while dependents are counted in the household size. Keeping this in mind as a premise when considering treatment will make it easier to explain when consulted.
• Long-term overseas business trips or assignments may affect residence history. The proposal states that, in principle, an absence of six months or more in a single departure, or a cumulative absence of two years and six months or more within the past 10 years, will be negatively evaluated.
• There are no changes to the special provisions for Highly Skilled Professional (1 year / 3 years). The impact on measures for recruiting and retaining highly skilled professionals is limited.

10. What is “Not Written” in the Draft

This type of draft often leads to explanations that fill in the unwritten parts with speculation. We will clarify matters for which specific figures or methods are not indicated in the draft as of August 30, 2026.

• Specific amount for “annual income level.” The draft only provides the definition “a level exceeding the average income of Japanese households according to the number of household members,” and no specific income table is shown.
• Specific criteria for “asset amount for compensation.” Only the policy that the amount will be lower for younger applicants, depending on their age at the time of application, is stated.
• How to confirm Japanese proficiency equivalent to B1. Specific test names or certification methods are not described in the draft.
• “Method designated by the Commissioner of the Immigration Services Agency” for understanding systems and rules. The method of confirmation itself has not yet been indicated.
• Revision date of the Guideline. The main text of the draft has a blank space for “Reiwa 8 (2026), Month XX, Day XX.”

We must await future announcements regarding these matters. When encountering information that asserts specific amounts or pass/fail criteria, please verify whether the source is primary information.

11. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1. Has this already been decided?
A. No, both are “drafts.” The comment period closed at 0:00 on September 4, 2026, but the content may still change in light of the comments received. Until the finalized version is published, these are not settled standards.

Q2. Where were comments submitted?
A. They were submitted via the e-Gov Public comment website. The case number for the Draft Revision of the Permanent Residency Guideline is 315000140, and for the Draft Revocation Guideline is 315000141. Because the period has closed, comments can no longer be submitted from those pages.

Q3. Can I still submit a comment?
A. No. The submission deadline was September 4, 2026, at 0:00, and it has already passed. What follows is the publication of the results and of the finalized guidelines.

Q4. Will I be unable to obtain Permanent Residency if I haven’t been enrolled in Employees’ Pension Insurance for 30 years?
A. The draft does not state that “30 years of enrollment is mandatory.” Instead, it considers whether the estimated future pension benefit reaches “the estimated amount if one had been enrolled in Employees’ Pension Insurance for 30 years at the annual income level.” Even if there is a shortfall, it is stated that it will be evaluated as having met the requirement if there are financial assets that can compensate for it.

Q5. I am a Spouse or Child of Japanese National, are the good conduct requirement and independent livelihood requirement relevant?
A. According to the proviso of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Act, a Spouse or Child of Japanese National, Permanent Resident, or Special Permanent Resident is not required to meet the good conduct requirement and independent livelihood requirement. However, the draft states that even for these individuals, a negative evaluation may be possible under “not becoming a public burden” within the national interest requirement.

Q6. I am currently a Permanent Resident, will my Permanent Residency be revoked if I fall behind on my resident tax payments?
A. This system does not immediately lead to revocation solely based on the fact of arrears. The draft specifies that it is limited to cases where one “intentionally” fails to pay, meaning deliberately not paying despite being aware of the payment obligation. Cases such as unavoidable circumstances like illness, disaster, or unemployment, or receiving installment payments or deferrals in response to a demand, are cited as examples that do not apply. If you have concerns, we recommend consulting with your local government first and keeping records.

Q7. If my Permanent Residency is revoked, must I return to my home country immediately?
A. According to Article 22-6 of the Immigration Control Act, unless it is deemed inappropriate to continue residing, the Status of Residence will be changed ex officio to a Status of Residence other than “Permanent Resident.” The draft anticipates a change to “Long-Term Resident” in most cases, and it is stated that it may be possible to obtain Permanent Residency again later if the requirements are met.

12. Summary

On August 4, 2026, the Immigration Services Agency announced two draft guidelines concerning Permanent Residency and solicited public comments. The comment period closed at 0:00 on September 4, 2026.

The Draft Revision of the Permanent Residency Guideline explicitly states that “Permanent Resident” is positioned as the most stable legal status, requiring particularly careful review. It adds the concepts of household annual income and estimated pension benefit amount to the independent livelihood requirement, and Japanese proficiency equivalent to B1, understanding of systems, school attendance for school-age children, and not becoming a public burden to the national interest requirement. The special provision for spouses will be extended to 5 years of marriage and 3 years of residence. The Draft Revocation Guideline specifically illustrates applicable and non-applicable cases for the three grounds for revocation added by the Reiwa 6 (2024) amendment.

In practice, the most easily overlooked aspect is the effective date. While the principle is for applications filed on or after April 1, 2027, the draft indicates that parts concerning income and public burden will also apply to cases pending on the revision date. It is not necessarily true that “submitting by April will be fine.” If you have any questions regarding determining the timing of your Permanent Residency Application, organizing income and pension based on household composition, or checking payment status, please consult us promptly. Furthermore, the Application Fee for Permanent Residency was also revised from October 1, 2026 (“Immigration Services Fee Revision on October 1“).

---

This article is written based on publicly available information as of August 2026. Details of the system and implementation dates may change in the future. For actual applications, please confirm with the official information from the Immigration Services Agency or our office.

Author of this article: Administrative Scrivener Authorized to File Applications Satoshi Nakayama
Representative, Administrative Scrivener Corporation Miyazaki International Legal Office
Location: Miyazaki City, Miyazaki Prefecture