Ordinary naturalization

Example scenarios

• Duc is eligible to apply for ordinary naturalization under Art. 5(1). He satisfies: (i) 5+ years continuous domicile (7 years — exceeds the statutory minimum); (ii) 18+ years of age with capacity; (iii) good conduct (clean record, tax compliance); (iv) livelihood (stable employment and income); (v) sole-nationality (he must renounce Vietnamese nationality or qualify for Art. 5(2) waiver — Vietnam generally permits renunciation); (vi) constitutional-loyalty bar (no issue on the facts). He files in person at the Legal Affairs Bureau for his domicile. No statutory filing fee. Under the April 2026 administrative tightening, MOJ now reviews approximately 10 years of history in practice (including tax records 5 years, social insurance 2 years), though the statutory minimum remains 5 years. Processing: approximately 8-12 months. Naturalization effective on Official Gazette date (Art. 10). He must file a koseki entry notification within 1 month of the gazette notice.

  5+ years continuous domicile (Art. 5(1)(i)): satisfied (7 years) | Age 18+ with capacity (Art. 5(1)(ii)): satisfied (age 42) | Good conduct (Art. 5(1)(iii)): satisfied on facts | Livelihood (Art. 5(1)(iv)): satisfied | Sole-nationality (Art. 5(1)(v)): must renounce Vietnamese nationality | Loyalty bar (Art. 5(1)(vi)): no issue

• Amara does NOT yet meet the ordinary naturalization requirements. Art. 5(1)(i) requires 5 years of continuous DOMICILE — not mere residence or student visa stay. Three years is insufficient. She must continue living in Japan for at least 2 more years (reaching 5 years). Additionally, student visa status may not count as 'domicile' (住所) in the full legal sense depending on her actual integration — the MOJ will assess whether her primary center of life is in Japan. If she has no reduced-domicile route available (she has no Japan birth, no Japanese parent, no Japanese spouse, no historical ties), she must pursue ordinary naturalization and wait for the 5-year domicile threshold. Note: the April 2026 administrative tightening means the MOJ may now review approximately 10 years of history in practice, though the statutory 5-year minimum is unchanged.

  Art. 5(1)(i): 5 years continuous domicile required — 3 years is insufficient | No simplified naturalization route available without Japanese family connection or historical ties | Student visa status may not fully constitute 'domicile' (住所) depending on facts | April 2026 tightening: ~10-year administrative review in practice

• The Art. 5(1)(vi) constitutional-loyalty bar applies to a person who 'has planned or advocated, or has formed/joined an organization that plans or advocates, the VIOLENT overthrow of the Constitution of Japan or the government established under it.' The key word is VIOLENT. Peaceful constitutional advocacy, legal political activity, and democratic campaigning for constitutional change do NOT constitute 'violent overthrow' advocacy. Sasha's participation in a group advocating peaceful democratic constitutional change does not, on these facts, trigger the Art. 5(1)(vi) bar. The bar targets violent revolution or insurrection — not the democratic political process. Sasha's naturalization eligibility under Art. 5(1)(vi) is not affected by this peaceful political activity. However, the MOJ exercises broad discretion — the specific content and activities of the group may be reviewed. No implied risk of disqualification on the stated facts.

  Art. 5(1)(vi) bars advocacy of VIOLENT overthrow — not peaceful constitutional change | Democratic advocacy for constitutional amendment = not 'violent overthrow' | MOJ reviews full application — political activities may be considered in discretionary assessment | Sasha's eligibility under Art. 5(1)(vi) appears clear on these facts

• Yujiro's Japanese nationality is UNAFFECTED by his criminal conviction. There is no provision in the Japanese Nationality Act that automatically deprives a Japanese national of nationality upon criminal conviction — the deprivation provision (Art. 16(2)) applies only to assuming foreign public office after making a nationality selection declaration, not to criminal conduct. He is fully Japanese and his conviction does not change this. The criminal conviction is relevant to the good-conduct condition (Art. 5(1)(iii)) ONLY if he were applying to naturalize someone else — but he is already Japanese, so this is irrelevant. His Japanese nationality is secure.

  No loss-of-nationality provision triggered by criminal conviction in Japanese law | Art. 16(2): deprivation limited to foreign-public-office assumption after selection declaration | Art. 11(1): only voluntary acquisition of foreign nationality triggers auto-loss | Yujiro is already Japanese — good-conduct condition (Art. 5(1)(iii)) is only relevant for naturalization applicants

• Permanent residency (PR, 永住者 status) is a RESIDENCE STATUS under Japanese immigration law — it is entirely distinct from Japanese nationality. Holding a PR card does not make Emma Japanese, does not entitle her to a Japanese passport, and does not create a path to automatic Japanese nationality. However, her PR status significantly helps her naturalization application: (1) she likely meets the 5-year continuous domicile condition (Art. 5(1)(i)) with 6 years in Japan; (2) PR status demonstrates stability, livelihood, and good conduct — all relevant to Art. 5(1)(iii) and (iv); (3) the MOJ favorably views PR holders in naturalization applications. Emma can apply for ordinary naturalization (JP-NAT-01) now if she satisfies all Art. 5(1) conditions, including the sole-nationality requirement (renounce her current foreign nationality). SPR (Special Permanent Resident) is also a residence status, not nationality — as confirmed in JP-EVID-063.

  PR (永住者) = immigration residence status, NOT Japanese nationality | PR does NOT automatically lead to citizenship | PR status helps the naturalization application but does not substitute for meeting Art. 5 conditions | 6-year domicile satisfies the Art. 5(1)(i) 5-year requirement

• Pierre does NOT yet meet the 5-year domicile condition (Art. 5(1)(i)) — he has 4.5 years. He must wait approximately 6 more months. Additionally, the livelihood condition (Art. 5(1)(iv)) is important: it is assessed on a HOUSEHOLD BASIS — the self-sufficiency of the applicant or a household-sharing spouse/relative is considered. His girlfriend's income and assets can support the household-basis livelihood assessment, even though they are not married. However, the MOJ assesses the stability and long-term sufficiency of the livelihood arrangement. An unmarried partner's income may be weighted less than a spouse's, and the unemployment history may raise questions. He should wait until he has re-established employment OR until the household-basis assessment is clearly strong with his girlfriend's support documented. The April 2026 tightening means the MOJ now reviews approximately 10 years in practice — his 4.5-year track record will not satisfy this extended review even after reaching the 5-year statutory mark.

  Art. 5(1)(i): 5-year domicile not yet met (4.5 years) | Art. 5(1)(iv): livelihood assessed on household basis — girlfriend's income can count | April 2026 tightening: ~10-year review in practice (administrative only, statute unchanged) | Unemployment history may affect good-conduct and livelihood assessments