With regard to an administrative review for any of the following dispositions or failure to act, a foreign national must submit a request for an administrative review to the Minister of Justice that states the particulars provided by a Ministry of Justice Order:
次に掲げる処分又は不作為についての審査請求は、法務大臣に対し、法務省令で定める事項を記載した審査請求書を提出してしなければならない。
denial of recognition of refugee status;
難民の認定をしない処分
failure to act pertaining to the application set forth in Article 61-2, paragraph (1); or
第六十一条の二第一項の申請に係る不作為
revocation of the recognition of refugee status pursuant to the provisions of Article 61-2-10, paragraph (1);
第六十一条の二の十第一項の規定による難民の認定の取消し
denial of recognition as a person eligible for complementary protection (limited to cases where the person has not been granted recognition of refugee status);
補完的保護対象者の認定をしない処分（難民の認定を受けていない場合に限る。）
failure to act pertaining to the application set forth in Article 61-2, paragraph (2); or
第六十一条の二第二項の申請に係る不作為
revocation of the recognition as a person eligible for complementary protection pursuant to the provisions of Article 61-2-10, paragraph (2).
第六十一条の二の十第二項の規定による補完的保護対象者の認定の取消し
The period set forth in the main clause of Article 18, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Complaint Review Act in relation to the request for an administrative review for the dispositions set forth in the items of the preceding paragraph (excluding items (ii) and (v)) is 7 days from the date on which the foreign national received the notice pursuant to the provisions of Article 61-2, paragraph (4) or (5) or Article 61-2-10, paragraph (3).
前項各号（第二号及び第五号を除く。）に掲げる処分についての審査請求に関する行政不服審査法第十八条第一項本文の期間は、第六十一条の二第四項若しくは第五項又は第六十一条の二の十第三項の規定による通知を受けた日から七日とする。
If making a decision on the request for the administrative review set forth in paragraph (1), the Minister of Justice must hear the opinions of the refugee examination counselors, as provided by Ministry of Justice Order.
法務大臣は、第一項の審査請求に対する裁決に当たつては、法務省令で定めるところにより、難民審査参与員の意見を聴かなければならない。
If making a decision pursuant to the provisions of Article 45, paragraph (1) or (2) or Article 49, paragraph (1) or (2) of the Administrative Complaint Review Act on the request for the administrative review set forth under paragraph (1), the Minister of Justice must clearly state the main points of the opinions of the refugee examination counselors set forth in the preceding paragraph, in the reason to be attached to the decision.
The refugee examination counselors are considered to be the review officers provided for in Article 11, paragraph (2) of the Administrative Complaint Review Act, and the provisions of the same Act are applied.
難民審査参与員については、行政不服審査法第十一条第二項に規定する審理員とみなして、同法の規定を適用する。
The provisions of Article 9, paragraph (1), Article 14, Article 17, Article 19, Article 29, Article 41, paragraph (2) (limited to the part pertaining to item (i)), Chapter II, Section 4 and Article 50, paragraph (2) of the Administrative Complaint Review Act do not apply to the request for an administrative review set forth under paragraph (1), and with regard to the application of other provisions of the same Act, the words and phrases in the middle column of the following table in the provisions of the same Act set forth in the left-hand column of the table is deemed to be replaced with those set forth in the right-hand column of the same Table, and any other necessary technical replacement of terms is provided for by Cabinet Order.
| The Provisions of the Administrative Complaint Review Act to be Replaced | Term to be Replaced | Term to be Used as a Replacement |
| Article 18, paragraph (3) | the following Article | Article 61-2-12, paragraph (1) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (Cabinet Order No. 319 of 1951; hereinafter referred to as the "Immigration Control Act") |
| Article 23 | Article 19 | Article 61-2-12, paragraph (1) of the Immigration Control Act |
| Article 30, paragraph (1) | a document containing a counterargument against the particulars stated in the written explanation sent thereto pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (5) of the preceding Article (hereinafter referred to as a "written counterargument") | a document (hereinafter referred to as "written statement") stating the opinion and other assertions of the person who requested the administrative review against the disposition or failure to act stated in each of the items of Article 61-2-12, paragraph (1) of the Immigration Control Act |
| a counterargument | a written statement | |
| Article 30, paragraph (3) | counterargument | written statement |
| proviso to Article 31, paragraph (1) | when | when ... or when even though the facts stated in the written statement or other facts pertaining to the assertions of the petitioner are true, it is found inappropriate to provide an opportunity to state an opinion due to the fact that no grounds are included to prove that person is a refugee or a person eligible for complementary protection or due to other circumstances |
| Article 31, paragraph (2) | are to be undertaken on the date and at the venue designated by the review officer in participation of all of the persons concerned with the proceedings. | are to be undertaken on the date and at the venue designated by the review officer with the participation of all the persons concerned with the proceedings after hearing from the petitioner on whether or not the petitioner has any questions to ask the administrative agency rendering the disposition, and the contents thereof relating to the case pertaining to the administrative review; provided, however, that the administrative agency rendering the disposition does not have to be summoned in cases that fall under any of the following items: (i) where the intention has been expressed by the petitioner to the effect that they do not require the administrative agency rendering the disposition to be summoned; (ii) beyond what is provided for in the preceding item, as a result of the hearing, it has been found that it is not necessary to summon the administrative agency rendering the disposition. |
| Article 41, paragraph (2), item (i) (b) | counterargument | written statement |
| Article 44 | when ... has received a response to its consultation from the Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc. (when a review officer's written opinion has been submitted in the case where the consultation pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article is not necessary (excluding the cases falling under item (ii) or (iii) of the same paragraph), or when deliberations prescribed in item (ii) or (iii) of the same paragraph have been held in the cases falling under item (ii) or (iii) of the same paragraph), | when the review officer's written opinion has been submitted |
| Article 50, paragraph (1), item (iv) | the review officer's written opinion or the written report from the Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc. or the Council, etc. | the review officer's written opinion |
| Article 83, paragraph (2) | Article 19 (excluding paragraph (5), items (i) and (ii)) | Article 61-2-12, paragraph (1) of the Immigration Control Act |
第一項の審査請求については、行政不服審査法第九条第一項、第十四条、第十七条、第十九条、第二十九条、第四十一条第二項（第一号イに係る部分に限る。）、第二章第四節及び第五十条第二項の規定は適用しないものとし、同法の他の規定の適用については、次の表の上欄に掲げる同法の規定中同表の中欄に掲げる字句は、同表の下欄に掲げる字句とするほか、必要な技術的読替えは、政令で定める。
| 読み替えられる行政不服審査法の規定 | 読み替えられる字句 | 読み替える字句 |
| 第十八条第三項 | 次条 | 出入国管理及び難民認定法（昭和二十六年政令第三百十九号。以下「入管法」という。）第六十一条の二の十二第一項 |
| 第二十三条 | 第十九条 | 入管法第六十一条の二の十二第一項 |
| 第三十条第一項 | 前条第五項の規定により送付された弁明書に記載された事項に対する反論を記載した書面（以下「反論書」という。） | 入管法第六十一条の二の十二第一項各号に掲げる処分又は不作為に対する意見その他の審査請求人の主張を記載した書面（以下「申述書」という。） |
| 反論書を | 申述書を | |
| 第三十条第三項 | 反論書 | 申述書 |
| 第三十一条第一項ただし書 | 場合 | 場合又は申述書に記載された事実その他の申立人の主張に係る事実が真実であっても、何らの難民若しくは補完的保護対象者となる事由を包含していないことその他の事情により当該意見を述べる機会を与えることが適当でないと認められる場合 |
| 第三十一条第二項 | 審理員が期日及び場所を指定し、全ての審理関係人を招集してさせるものとする。 | 審理員が、あらかじめ審査請求に係る事件に関する処分庁等に対する質問の有無及びその内容について申立人から聴取した上で、期日及び場所を指定し、全ての審理関係人を招集してさせるものとする。ただし、次の各号のいずれかに該当する場合には、処分庁等を招集することを要しない。 一 申立人から処分庁等の招集を要しない旨の意思の表明があったとき。 二 前号に掲げる場合のほか、当該聴取の結果、処分庁等を招集することを要しないと認めるとき。 |
| 第四十一条第二項第一号ロ | 反論書 | 申述書 |
| 第四十四条 | 行政不服審査会等から諮問に対する答申を受けたとき（前条第一項の規定による諮問を要しない場合（同項第二号又は第三号に該当する場合を除く。）にあっては審理員意見書が提出されたとき、同項第二号又は第三号に該当する場合にあっては同項第二号又は第三号に規定する議を経たとき） | 審理員意見書が提出されたとき |
| 第五十条第一項第四号 | 審理員意見書又は行政不服審査会等若しくは審議会等の答申書 | 審理員意見書 |
| 第八十三条第二項 | 第十九条（第五項第一号及び第二号を除く。） | 入管法第六十一条の二の十二第一項 |
Read this with the articles around it
refugee
「難民」
A refugee to whom the Refugee Convention applies under Article 1 of the Convention or Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Defined inArticle 2, paragraph (1), item (iii)· applies throughout the law
person eligible for complementary protectionmachine translation
「補完的保護対象者」
A person who is not a refugee but meets every requirement for refugee status under the Refugee Convention except that the persecution they fear is not for one of the reasons in Article 1A(2) of the Convention.
Defined inArticle 2, paragraph (1), item (iii-2)· applies throughout the law
recognition of refugee statusmachine translation
「難民の認定」
The Minister of Justice's recognition, on the application of a foreign national in Japan, that the person is a refugee.
Short name set inArticle 61-2, paragraph (1)
recognition as a person eligible for complementary protectionmachine translation
「補完的保護対象者の認定」
The Minister of Justice's recognition, on the application of a foreign national in Japan, that the person is eligible for complementary protection.
Short name set inArticle 61-2, paragraph (2)
Immigration Control Actmachine translation
「入管法」
Short name for the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, used in the wording this paragraph substitutes into the Administrative Complaint Review Act when that Act is applied to a request for review (審査請求) of a refugee or complementary protection decision under Article 61-2-12, paragraph (1).
Short name set inArticle 61-2-12, paragraph (6)
written counterargumentmachine translation
「反論書」
The written counterargument (反論書) that, under Article 30, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Complaint Review Act, answers what is stated in the written explanation (弁明書) sent under Article 29, paragraph (5) of that Act; for requests for administrative review (審査請求) under Article 61-2-12 of this Act it is replaced by a written statement (申述書).
Short name set inArticle 61-2-12, paragraph (6)
written statementmachine translation
「申述書」
A document in which a person requesting administrative review (審査請求) of a decision listed in Article 61-2-12, paragraph (1) — such as a refusal to recognise them as a refugee or as a person eligible for complementary protection, the revocation of that recognition, or a failure to act on their application — sets out their opinion and other arguments against it; in these reviews it takes the place of the written counterargument (反論書) of the Administrative Complaint Review Act.
Short name set inArticle 61-2-12, paragraph (6)
Administrative Complaint Review Board
行政不服審査会
A board set up in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (総務省) to deal with the matters the Administrative Complaint Review Act puts in its charge (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 67). Where the agency deciding a request for review (審査請求) is the competent minister (主任の大臣), the Grand Steward of the Imperial Household Agency (宮内庁長官) or the head of certain agencies, it must as a rule consult the board once the review officer (審理員) has handed in an opinion — but not, among other cases, where a council already deliberated on the disposition (処分), where the person requesting the review has said they do not want the board consulted and no intervenor (参加人) objects, where the request is unlawful and is dismissed, or where a disposition other than one refusing an application is to be revoked in full, or an application is to be granted in full, and no one has opposed that; where the agency is the head of a local government (地方公共団体), it consults a body the local government sets up instead (Articles 43, paragraph (1), and 81). Another Act can send the consultation to a body of its own instead, or do without it: a request for review of a decision on disclosure under the Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs is put to the Information Disclosure and Personal Information Protection Review Board (情報公開・個人情報保護審査会) (Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs, Articles 18, paragraph (2), and 19, paragraph (1); Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 1, paragraph (2)). The board has nine members, part-time, though up to three may be full-time (Article 68), appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications (総務大臣), with the consent of both Houses of the Diet (国会), from people who can judge fairly and have outstanding insight into law or administration, for three years (Article 69, paragraphs (1) and (4)). It examines each case in a panel of three members it names, or of all its members where it so decides (Article 72). When it has answered a consultation, it sends a copy of its written report (答申書) to the person who requested the review and to any intervenor, and makes the report public (Article 79). The agency that consulted it must then make its determination (裁決) without delay, and where the determination's conclusion differs from the report, it must give the reasons for that (Articles 44 and 50, paragraph (1), item (iv)).
Written by AI using Administrative Complaint Review Act, Arts. 43, 44, 50, 67, 68, 69, 72, 79, 81 and Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs, Arts. 18, 19 as a reference.
request for review
審査請求
A request to an administrative agency (行政庁) to review a disposition (処分) the person objects to, or, where the person applied for a disposition under a law or regulation and a reasonable time has passed with none made, the agency's failure to act (不作為) (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Articles 2 and 3). Unless an Act, or for a disposition based on a local ordinance (条例) that ordinance, provides otherwise, it is made to the agency that made the disposition or failed to act where that agency has no superior agency or is itself the competent minister (主任の大臣) or the head of certain agencies; where such a minister or head is the agency above it, to that minister or head; and otherwise to its highest superior agency (Article 4). Another Act can set rules of its own for it, naming another body to make it to or another route (Article 1, paragraph (2); Article 4): the Employees' Pension Insurance Act, for instance, has a request about a disposition (処分) of the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare (厚生労働大臣) on a person's status as insured, standard remuneration or insurance benefits, other than a decision on a request to correct the pension insurance register, made to a social insurance examiner (社会保険審査官), and disapplies most of the Administrative Complaint Review Act's rules for it (Employees' Pension Insurance Act, Articles 90, paragraph (1), and 91-2). Under the Administrative Complaint Review Act, a request about a disposition must be made within three months of the day after the person learned of it — or one month after learning of the decision, where a request for re-investigation (再調査の請求) was made first — and within a year of the disposition or that decision, unless there is a justifiable reason (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 18, paragraphs (1) and (2)). Making one does not by itself stop the disposition taking effect or being carried out, or the proceedings going on (Article 25, paragraph (1)), but the agency reviewing it can suspend them in whole or in part on the application of the person who made the request — and, where it made the disposition or is the agency above the one that did, of its own motion — and, once the person who made the request has applied, must where that is urgently needed to avoid serious harm, unless that would seriously affect the public welfare or the request appears to have no grounds (Article 25, paragraphs (2) to (4)). The agency reviewing it (審査庁) decides it by a determination (裁決): it dismisses a request that is unlawful, for instance one made too late, rejects one that is groundless, and, where one is well founded, revokes the disposition in whole or in part or changes it — though never to the disadvantage of the person who made the request, and an agency that neither made the disposition nor is above the agency that did cannot change it (Articles 45, paragraphs (1) and (2), 46, paragraph (1), and 48). Where the request is about a de facto act (事実上の行為), the determination instead declares the act unlawful or unjust and orders it abolished in whole or in part or changed, or abolishes or changes it (Article 47). A well-founded request about a failure to act ends instead in a determination declaring the failure unlawful or unjust, and, where the agency finds a disposition should be made, an order to make it or the disposition itself (Article 49, paragraph (3)). Where revoking an unlawful or unjust disposition, or abolishing an unlawful or unjust de facto act, would seriously harm the public interest, the agency can reject the request while declaring in the determination that it is unlawful or unjust (Article 45, paragraph (3)). The determination takes effect when it is served on the person who made the request — or, where someone other than the disposition's addressee made it and the determination revokes or changes the disposition or deals with a de facto act, once it is served on the addressee too — and binds the agencies concerned (Articles 51, paragraph (1), and 52, paragraph (1)).
Written by AI using Administrative Complaint Review Act, Arts. 1 to 4, 18, 25, 45 to 49, 51, 52 and Employees' Pension Insurance Act, Arts. 90, 91-2 as a reference.