this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
130 points (97.1% liked)
Academia
977 readers
14 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To preface this comment, I in no way support this action and think he should stay. It's important to also know that Japan is very restrictive with their visas. I knew someone who lived and worked in Japan for 7 years until she fell into depression and was hospitalized briefly. That mental health diagnosis was enough for the Japanese government to cancel her visa. She lost her job and had to leave her boyfriend of 4 years who she lived with.
I doubt they would have cancelled the visa. Immigration doesn't have access to your medical records. It is more likely that they may not have renewed her working visa if she was currently unemployed. Unfortunate but you have to follow the rules of the visa.
I'm not sure how easy for Japan's Immigration to have seen those medical records.
But from sources ( https://www.bn.emb-japan.go.jp/consular/criteria/_of/_visa/_issuance.htm and https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/4235/en ) it seems like the following applies:
And from that law,
(Dealing with different English translations of the Japanese originals likely explains the slight discrepancies in wording here.)
Finally, Google's AI overview confirms,
Also, there's a forum thread over at https://www.japan-guide.com/forum/quereadisplay.html?0%20174499 which states,
But perhaps since a hospitalisation occurred in this case, that's why it was treated so strictly.
There's also https://www.japan-guide.com/forum/quereadisplay.html?0%20173504 which says,
So while I'm still unsure about the exact mechanism of enforcement, it seems that Japan Immigration is supposed to know or be informed about these kinds of situations specifically because their laws require it to establish and maintain visa eligibility.
In other words, the tale that protist shared is at least plausible and I believe likely to be completely truthful.
This is landing permission. This is you entering the country before the actual visa (residence card) is issued.
Was your friend currently employed when they lost their visa? Even if they were in hospital, if they were employed and on sick leave there is no way this story holds true.
Edit: if they lost their job, their employer is obligated to inform immigration within 10 days of this happening and if they do not find employment within three months, then they could be depleted
Not my friend. You're confusing me with someone else.
While timing from the original comment isn't clear, the phrasing of "That mental health diagnosis was enough for the Japanese government to cancel her visa" suggests that the visa getting cancelled came first (and loss of employment was due to no longer having a valid visa etc).
Ah, good point. So on the one hand it seems odd that it'd be a requirement to enter the country but not to stay, but on the other hand many rights are often won on technicalities like this one.
That being said... from https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/1934/en#je_ch4sc1at9
With Article 5, paragraph (1) being the landing procedures already referenced in my earlier comment. (You can also see the Appended Tables I and II here, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/1934/en#je_apxt1 but these basically cover almost every visa imaginable status.)
Keep in mind that I don't understand the exact meaning of "wrongful means" here and I'm certainly not an expert in Japanese law - so I'm just assuming that it means "obtained it incorrectly" aka there was an unintentional mistake or unintentional omission (in contrast to "deceit" which is defined as requiring intent).
Basically though, if I'm understanding correctly, this means that the law in Japan allows revoking the visa/status if it's later determined that granting the status during landing should not have been done.
So it might have been enough if, after somehow learning about the hospital stay (perhaps the friend of the other commenter told immigration in case the "brief" stay ended up being more than three months - which from "brief", it probably wasn't, but perhaps the friend might have been trying to be helpful to immigration here and also forgot to double check with a lawyer first), that Japan Immigration determined that the depression was a condition that existed before the landing happened and thus should have been reported (even if the friend didn't know about it beforehand). One can imagine an even harsher scenario - where the friend was falsely accused of knowing about the depression before coming to Japan and deliberately hiding it (which would then qualify as "deceit").
I'm guessing and speculating too much here. The original tale remains plausible to me, but to really understand it, it seems like more details would be necessary (which the original commenter might not even know, as it happened to a friend).
Not doubting you, but just curious, as I wasn't able to find a source regarding this. In fact I found something else, https://www.japan-guide.com/forum/quereadisplay.html?0%2059619 , which suggests the opposite is true (that employers in Japan rarely inform immigration) - but that one is also 15 years old and might be significantly out of date.
"depleted" is an odd word here - I guess you mean having their visa/status cancelled or revoked?
I i did find other sources ( https://www.japan-guide.com/forum/quereadisplay.html?0%20132389 & https://www.japan-guide.com/forum/quereadisplay.html?0%20171354 & https://www.daijob.com/en/guide/expat-essentials/important-procedures-for-foreigners-living-in-japan-2-troubleshooting/ ) confirming this.
Thank you for the long and courteous reply. This is why I love it here.
Sorry I conflated who I was replying to.
What you said made sense. I guess it could be likened to lying on a travel insurance application form. Declaring that you're medically well, but then requiring treatment abroad. You wouldn't be covered.
As for my strange word choice, I meant deported (I was tired).
The ten day thing (which after researching is actually 14 days) is a requirement of the visa holder, but I thought companies were obligated to do it. Maybe they don't have to? I know for a fact the company which I work for does. 
The same. I learned a lot and am grateful to have had the chance to discuss this topic with someone clearly knowledgable on it.
No worries. All cleared up now.
Ahh yes, that matches with the sources above that I found then.
Yeah, that makes sense. I certainly didn't see anything suggesting that companies were forbidden from reporting this, or that Japan Immigration was not allowed to act on such reports (as would be the case in Canada, for example).
Yep, exactly this.
Going back to an earlier point you mentioned about the yearly medical exam required by companies. Companies are required by law to have their employees take a yearly medical exam. The employee is not technically required to (but if too few employees attend it will get the company in hot water). Also, you can refuse any part of the exam if you so wish.
Anyway, my point is that there is no mental health exam in this yearly checkup. They are the most basic of basic things (you can opt for more extensive testing at your own expense). Apart from the questionnaire which has some questions like "how well do you sleep" etc.
It's no wonder mental health is a huge problem in this country, which is still mostly being swept under the carpet. Health insurance doesn't cover the cost of therapy, only the cost of a diagnosis and drugs.
Sorry to get off topic but this is a big annoyance I have as I know people affected by these issues, too.
Happy to take part in discussions like these. I think everyone knows someone who's been affected by the issues at hand. Also, I think the comments are deep enough now that others wouldn't necessarily see any off topic discussion here..
Hmm, is this all employees now (including Japanese nationals and special permanent residents)? Or just the foreign nationals working for the Japanese company in Japan?
If it was for all employees, then I'd still wonder if the foreign national could get in trouble with Immigration for taking the exam.
So the employees are fine to refuse the exam, but the company would be incentivised to get them to take it. I hope that they're only allowed to use the carrot (using positive incentives like gift giving or granting benefits) and not the stick (negative incentives like threatening termination for not taking the exam).
But I wonder also how that ties into the above - if hypothetically every employee in the company takes the exam but every employee refuses the same part of the exam, is the company still in trouble? Or is the checkbox merely "N employees took the medical" with the finer details not mattering as much?
All employees no matter their nationality are to take yearly medicals. The results are shared only with a company appointed doctor. One reason is so that the company can implement changes if there is a pattern of bad health. Like if their workers are unfit, they might start a fitness program, or education program etc.
If a diagnosis from the examination comes back as needing more attention, you will be directed to do so (but you can ignore these, too if it is not severe).
If there is something majorly wrong that would affect your work, the company doctor would have to notify the company.
As for everyone attending and refusing all tests, I doubt that would happen. Some are very basic like height and weight, hearing and so on. But I doubt believe that attendance is what is counted, not what tests were or were not taken. Again, opinion only.
So far this sounds reasonable and makes a lot of sense.
Ah, so basically the same as if just seeing my own personal family doctor.
Ah, so the exact opposite of seeing my own personal family doctor. And I assume it's not an anonymous report (you have X people working for you who have Y disease which will affect your business) but an identifying one (abff08f4813c has Y disease which you need to know about). Which leads to why someone might attend but refuse one or a few specific tests...
Well, even this - if I have that job which requires me to be under a certain weight, and I know that I just recently gained a few above. So I refuse that part to avoid getting it reported to my company. Or if I know my hearing has gotten worse (say due to a checkup I had with an overseas doctor) where excellent and superior hearing is a requirement for the job, same deal.
Agreed. I didn't mean all, but just some. Perhaps like the one specific test involving needles to check blood (maybe this would happen due to a fear of contaminated needles based on a hypothetical recent incident?). But you answered below - if it's just attendance that's being counted, then the specific nature of this kind of refusal wouldn't matter so much.
That makes sense. It's probably hard in practice to require a company get N number of employees to take a specific test (and prove it was done) while attendance is easier to count, so attendance is used as a proxy that enough employees are getting checked for the necessary things and being found in good health.
Well, these are facts - meaning that they're fact-checkable. We might not be entirely sure of the answers to some of these and perhaps have to make guesses or speculate, but unlike opinions a fact like "(In Japan) attendance is what is counted" for example can in principle be checked and confirmed as right or wrong, which is not the case for a true opinion.
Yep. But in Japan there is no such thing as a family doctor or GP. Closest is a doctor of internal medicine naika
Were it so serious, you would be identified and put on leave or whatever was deemed appropriate for the circumstances. It would not be anonymous but compartmentalised.
As it so happens I just got the email from my company about the medical check. It needs to be conducted by the end of October. In more populous areas, mobile clinics (think RV buses) will be brought to offices to conduct the exams.
Interesting. In fact there's quite a bit of difference between the two, https://mana.md/whats-the-difference-between-a-general-practitioner-and-an-internist/
But there's also already concern that we're running out of GPs in other countries, e.g. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/oma-declining-number-medical-school-students-family-medicine-1.7182901 - so perhaps this is just a glimpse of the future.
That's not as bad, but it's still a case of an employer knowing far more about my medical health than I'm used to.
Interesting idea. Would certainly make it easier to get it done when the clinic is brought to you.
Good luck!
Everything is being centralized to the My Number (MyNa) system (national ID card, basically). Starting this year, insurance cards are no longer issued but the MyNa card is used. They plan to do driving licenses and the zairyuu card for foreigners as well. As an aside, foreigners' cards expire with their residency which can be a paperwork nightmare for some things, especially with immigration having lately been very slow running over the SoR expiry.
Now, does consolidating that mean that they will have easier access or access at all? That I'm not sure of. I wonder indeed how the government would have known.
Yeah you can already get the drivers license integrated. They're incentivising it by making the renewal fee higher if you want the actual license card. I'm not sure which I will choose next time I renew (or if it will even be an option then).
The one thing I like about the my number card is you can have your alias printed as a memo on the front. Basically, if you can prove you use a katakana name, you can have it added. Mine doesn't include my middle names, which is very useful when needing ID for making a credit card etc.