Photo/Illutration Refugee examination counselors attend a news conference in Tokyo’s Chiyoda Ward on May 30. (Kazumichi Kubota)

Opposition parties seeking to halt a bill on revising Japan’s immigration law are pouncing on the disproportionate workload assigned to certain counselors who review rejected applications for refugee status.

The bill to revise the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Law is now being deliberated in the Upper House. The Lower House passed the legislation on May 9.

The revised law would allow authorities to deport overstaying foreign nationals after two rejections of their applications for refugee status.

Currently, those who have overstayed their visas can repeatedly apply for refugee status, and Japan puts their deportation orders on hold during the screening process.

Counselors who review the appeals of rejected applications work in groups of three, and they give their opinions on each case to the justice minister.

Counselors are selected from among former diplomats, lawyers and support group officials.

There are currently 111 refugee examination counselors. But it has come to light that the bulk of the cases are handled by only a handful of them.

“It’s an arbitrary and unfair operation by the Immigration Services Agency of Japan,” a critic of the system said.

According to the agency, there were 6,741 reviews in 2021 and 4,740 in 2022.

One of the counselors, Fusako Yanase, honorary chairman of a nonprofit organization, was involved in 1,378 cases in 2021 and 1,231 cases in 2022, or more than 20 percent of all reviews, according to data shown at the Upper House Judicial Affairs Committee.

Yanase said at the Diet two years ago, “I want to find and recognize refugees, but I can hardly find any.”

Her statement implied that most asylum seekers were repeatedly applying for refugee status simply to avoid deportation and remain in Japan.

The government has been using Yanase’s statement when explaining the need for the revision bill.

Opposition parties have been requesting disclosure of Yanase’s reviewing process.

When foreigners waive face-to-face reviews or when their reasons cited, such as financial struggles, would likely lead to a rejection of their refugee status applications, immigration authorities determine that such cases can be swiftly adjudicated with just a document.

These cases are then assigned to an extraordinary team whose counselors can make swift decisions based on the paperwork, according to the immigration agency.

The agency said Yanase has handled so many cases because she has been a member of the extraordinary team since 2016, as well as being part of the permanent team that conducts face-to-face reviews.

“Even in the cases assigned to the extraordinary team, if the refugee examination counselors decide that careful reviews are needed, such cases are subsequently reassigned to the permanent team,” the agency said. “The allocation (to Yanase) is appropriate.”

However, some refugee examination counselors have questioned the system.

Seven current or former counselors attended a May 30 news conference held by the Japan Lawyers Network for Refugees, which opposes the revision bill.

Counselor Yasuzo Kitamura, a professor emeritus at Chuo University, said he has issued opinions recommending refugee status to foreigners who had initially waived face-to-face reviews.

He questioned the push for swift decisions.

“What’s the point of having a team that just zips through the cases?” he said.

Another counselor, lawyer Takashi Ito, said he reviewed 49 cases over the past two years and recommended granting refugee status in nine of them.

He said he is concerned about situations where the immigration agency first allocates the cases.

“If (the cases) are being ‘packaged’ and processed swiftly, the question is, ‘Who is making that decision?’” he said.

Refugee support groups have criticized the revision bill, saying Japan could end up deporting people who will face persecution.

“It could be irreversible if there is a mistake in the judgment,” they said.

But the government has explained there is a system where third-party opinions on refugee applications are heard.

Related News