How Should You Prepare for Permanent Residence in Japan Under the 2026 Draft Guidelines?

The proposals suggest that Permanent Residence planning may need to begin well before the application date.

Last updated: August 5, 2026

On August 4, 2026, Japan’s Immigration Services Agency published two important proposals for public comment:

• a proposed revision of the Permanent Residence Guidelines; and
• draft guidelines concerning revocation of Permanent Resident status.

The public-comment period is scheduled to close at 12:00 a.m. on September 4, 2026.

It would therefore be premature to conclude that every applicant is already subject to all of the proposed standards.

However, the proposals provide a useful indication of how Permanent Residence preparation may change.

Permanent Residence may require longer-term planning

Many applicants begin preparing for Permanent Residence by collecting tax certificates, pension records and employment documents shortly before filing.

Under the draft Guidelines, the assessment would be described in much greater detail. It would include matters such as:

• current and expected future income
• household size and dependants
• estimated future pension benefits
• financial assets
• tax and social-insurance payment history
• periods spent outside Japan
• Japanese-language ability
• understanding of Japanese systems and rules
• school attendance of school-age children

This suggests that Permanent Residence may increasingly need to be treated as a timeline-management process rather than a document-collection exercise.

1. Review income at the household level

The draft Guidelines state that, in principle, household income would be considered in comparison with the average income of Japanese households of the same size.

The relevant household would generally consist of people who share both a residence and household finances.

The applicant’s income and the income of qualifying household members could be combined. However, the draft also indicates that income earned under a status not intended primarily for work—such as Dependent status—would not necessarily be included in household income.

Overseas dependants may also matter

The draft states that relatives supported by the applicant, including relatives living outside Japan, would be added when determining household size.

This could affect applicants who claim overseas parents or other relatives as dependants for tax purposes or regularly provide their financial support.

A salary figure alone may no longer answer the eligibility question. The number of people supported by that income may be equally important.

2. Check your pension record before the application year

The proposal introduces a more detailed examination of expected future pension benefits.

The draft refers to the applicant’s age, full enrollment history, previous working arrangements, contribution period, average income and current income when estimating future pension benefits.

The estimated benefit would be compared with a benchmark based on a person working for 30 years at the relevant income level while enrolled in Employees’ Pension Insurance.

Where the estimated pension falls below that benchmark, financial assets capable of covering the projected shortfall may also be considered.

This review should be performed early. Missing employment or pension records can take time to investigate and correct.

3. Preserve proof of every public payment

The draft Guidelines continue to place substantial importance on taxes, public pension contributions and public health-insurance premiums.

These public obligations may include:

• income tax
• resident tax
• National Pension contributions
• Employees’ Pension Insurance contributions
• National Health Insurance premiums
• employee health-insurance contributions
• other public charges applicable to the applicant or household

If you pay National Pension, National Health Insurance, resident tax or another public charge yourself, keep the receipt and payment slip.

For electronic payments, preserve the payment-completion screen, electronic receipt or downloadable payment history.

A payment record is not only evidence that money was eventually paid. It may also show whether the obligation was fulfilled by the deadline.

4. Review your periods outside Japan

The draft provides numerical reference points for absences during the ten years before the application.

It states that, without a reasonable explanation, an absence of at least six months on one occasion or total absences of at least two years and six months during that ten-year period would, in principle, be evaluated negatively.

This does not mean that every shorter trip is irrelevant or that every longer absence automatically produces the same result.

The purpose, necessity, frequency and supporting evidence for the absences may still require individual consideration.

5. Do not wait to consider Japanese-language evidence

The draft identifies Japanese-language ability at approximately B1 level or higher as a consideration.

The proposal does not yet specify one universally required examination or certificate for every applicant.

It also provides situations in which it may not be necessary or appropriate to assess the applicant personally against the B1 consideration.

These may include certain highly skilled applicants and their family members, applicants who received at least six years of eligible elementary or secondary education, and certain children of Permanent Residents.

Applicants who may be affected should consider:

• what evidence they already have
• whether they have studied Japanese formally
• whether taking an appropriate examination may be useful
• whether an exception or different assessment may apply

6. Understanding Japanese systems may become a separate consideration

The proposal also refers to an assessment of the applicant’s understanding of Japanese systems and rules.

The draft indicates that the confirmation would mainly be based on matters described in the Immigration Services Agency’s Living and Work Guidebook, using a method designated by the Commissioner of the Agency.

The specific assessment method has not yet been finalized in the published proposal.

7. Families with school-age children should review school records

Under the draft, where the applicant is raising a child of compulsory school age, the child’s attendance at elementary or junior high school would be considered.

Families should therefore preserve:

• school enrollment records
• documents explaining any period outside the ordinary school system
• records relating to overseas education, medical circumstances or other special arrangements

The proposed wording should not be reduced to a conclusion that every non-standard educational arrangement will automatically prevent Permanent Residence. Individual facts and the final rules will still matter.

8. The spouse route may require a longer timeline

The current exception for spouses of Japanese nationals, Permanent Residents and Special Permanent Residents generally refers to:

• at least three years of genuine marriage; and
• at least one year of continuous residence in Japan.

The draft proposes changing these periods to:

• at least five years of genuine marriage; and
• at least three years of continuous residence in Japan.

A person who may qualify under the current exception but not under the proposed one should review the possible application timeline carefully.

Timing should not, however, be considered in isolation from the strength and completeness of the application.

9. Check which application date may be relevant

The draft states that the revised Guidelines would generally apply to applications filed on or after April 1, 2027.

However, it also proposes transitional treatment for certain provisions concerning household income and public burden.

Those provisions may apply to applications filed during the six months before the final revision date if the application is still pending on that date.

Applicants should avoid assuming that filing before April 1, 2027 will automatically exclude every part of the proposed assessment.

10. Permanent Residence would remain an ongoing responsibility

The second proposal concerns the possible revocation of Permanent Resident status or an official change to another status after Permanent Residence has been granted.

The draft addresses matters including:

• failure to comply with certain obligations under immigration law
• deliberate non-payment of taxes or public contributions
• certain serious criminal-law violations

Public charges include taxes, public health-insurance premiums and public pension contributions.

For deliberate non-payment, the draft describes an overall assessment of:

• whether the person understood the payment obligation
• the number and duration of unpaid periods
• the amount outstanding
• responses to reminders and collection procedures
• income, assets and ability to pay
• the reason the arrears arose
• whether the person has shown an intention to pay

Illness, disaster, unemployment and other unavoidable circumstances may be treated differently where the person is not responsible for the failure to pay.

Would one mistake automatically result in loss of PR?

The draft explains that even an accidental failure to comply with certain residence-card obligations may technically fall within a statutory ground.

However, it also states that one isolated failure, such as forgetting a residence-card renewal or failing to carry the card on one occasion, is not expected by itself to result in revocation.

A report to Immigration would also not automatically determine the result. The draft describes investigation, confirmation of the facts and an opportunity for the person concerned to present their position.

Even where a revocation ground is established, the proposal distinguishes between:

• revoking the status and requiring departure; and
• changing the person to another status, generally Long-Term Resident status.

The circumstances, previous residence history, family relationships, humanitarian considerations and future intentions would be considered.

A practical preparation plan

Should you apply now or wait?

The draft Guidelines do not produce one answer for every applicant.

Applying under the current Guidelines may deserve consideration where an applicant already qualifies and the application is otherwise well prepared.

Waiting may be more appropriate where:

• income or employment remains unstable
• the pension record is incomplete
• public payments need to be investigated
• travel history has not been reconstructed
• the applicable PR route is still uncertain
• the necessary evidence cannot yet be obtained

A proposed change should not turn an incomplete application into a rushed application.

Final message

The most important change in perspective is this:

Permanent Residence preparation may no longer begin when an applicant downloads the application form.

It may begin years earlier—with employment decisions, household planning, pension enrollment, on-time payments, travel records, language preparation and the preservation of evidence.

Before deciding whether to apply now or wait, ask: “Is my long-term record ready for review, and can I prove each important part of it?”

Official sources: Proposed Revision of the Permanent Residence Guidelines / Draft Guidelines on Revocation of Permanent Resident Status