McLean v Minister of Justice, 1978

1. Foreign nationals are not guaranteed the right to sojourn or the right to demand its continuation

2. determination of the existence of a reasonable ground for finding the renewal of term of sojourn to be appropriate on the basis of Article 21 para. 3 of the Cabinet Order on Immigration Control is left to the discretion of the Minister of Justice, and unless there are grounds for refusal of disembarkation or grounds similar to those for compulsory deportation, it is not impermissible to refuse renewal

3. The court, when reviewing the decision of the Minister of Justice on the existence of reasonable grounds for finding the renewal of the term of sojourn on the basis of Article 21 para. 3 of the Cabinet Order on Immigration Control to be appropriate, assuming that the decision has been made as an exercise of the discretionary power of the Minister of Justice, must examine whether the factual basis for the decision was totally missing or not, such as in cases where there was an error in the material fact which served as a basis of the decision, or whether it is evident that the decision significantly lacks appropriateness in the light of socially accepted views such as in cases where the assessment of facts was evidently unreasonable. Only when these points are found to be in the affirmative mat the court find it to be in excess of the scope of discretionary power or abuse of such power and to be unlawful.

4. Constitutional guarantee on the freedom of political activities extends to foreign nationals staying in Japan, except those activities which are considered to be inappropriate by taking into account the status as a foreign national, such as activities which have influence on political decision-making and its implementation in Japan.

>5. Constitutional guarantee of fundamental human rights for foreign nationals does not extend as far as to bind the exercise of discretionary power of the state, i.e. does not include guarantee that acts which are guaranteed as fundamental human rights under the Constitution during the sojourn should not be considered as negative circumstances in renewing the term of sojourn.

Structural translation

5. Guarantees of fundamental human rights in the constiution for aliens [do not include] guarantees as far as to bind the discretion of the state to determine to permit or not [permit] [their] sojourn, that is, [guarantees in the constitution] do not include guarantees as far as [to imply] that [the state] is not able to take into account as negative circumstances on the occasion of renewal of the period of sojourn acts [an alien committed] during the period of sojourn which receive guarantees of fundamental human rights in the constitution.

6. Activities of the appellant in the present case cannot be instantly disregarded as being outside the scope of constitutional guarantee as political activities of a foreign national during the sojourn, but it cannot be denied that these activities include those criticising the immigration policy of Japan, or criticising the basic foreign policy of Japan and may affect the friendly relationship between Japan and the United States. Even if the Minister of Justice, by taking into account those activities, decided that there was no reasonable ground to find it appropriate to renew the term of sojourn, it cannot be regarded as an excess of the scope of discretionary power or abuse of discretionary power.

憲法第3章，憲法19条，憲法21条，憲法22条1項，出入国管理令21条3項，行政事件訴訟法30条

Constitution Chapter 3, Constitution Article 19, Constitution Article 21, Constitution Article 22 Paragraph 1, Immigration Control Act Article 21 Paragraph 3, Administrative Case Procedure Law Article 30

憲法22条1項

第22条　何人も、公共の福祉に反しない限り、居住、移転及び職業選択の自由を有する。
２　何人も、外国に移住し、又は国籍を離脱する自由を侵されない。

Concerning item 1:
Article 22, para. 1 of the Constitution

Every person shall have freedom to choose and change his residence and to choose his occupation to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare [official translation]

出入国管理令21条3項

Contemporary law

出入国管理令

（在留期間の更新）

第二十一條 本邦に在留する外国人は、現に有する在留資格を変更することなく、在留期間の更新を受けることができる。

　2 前項の規定により在留期間の更新を受けようとする外国人は、外務省令で定める手続により、長官に対し在留期間の更新を申請しなければならない。

　3 前項の申請があつた場合には、長官は、当該外国人が提出した文書により在留期間の更新を適当と認めるに足りる相当の理由があるときに限り、これを許可することができる。

　4 前項の許可があつたときは、当該外国人は、外務省令で定める手続により、長官又は入国審査官から旅券に記載された在留期間の書換を受けなければならない。

Present law

出入国管理及び難民認定法

（在留期間の更新）

第二十一条　本邦に在留する外国人は、現に有する在留資格を変更することなく、在留期間の更新を受けることができる。

　２ 前項の規定により在留期間の更新を受けようとする外国人は、法務省令で定める手続により、法務大臣に対し在留期間の更新を申請しなければならない。

　３ 前項の申請があつた場合には、法務大臣は、当該外国人が提出した文書により在留期間の更新を適当と認めるに足りる相当の理由があるときに限り、これを許可することができる。

　４ 法務大臣は、前項の許可をする場合には、入国審査官に、当該許可に係る外国人が旅券を所持しているときは旅券に新たな在留期間を記載させ、旅券を所持していないときは当該外国人に対し在留資格及び新たな在留期間を記載した在留資格証明書を交付させ、又は既に交付を受けている在留資格証明書に新たな在留期間を記載させるものとする。この場合においては、前条第四項後段の規定を準用する。

Concerning items 2, 3, and 6:
Article 21, para. 3 of the Cabinet Order on Immigration Control

When there was an application based upon the preceding provision, the Minister of Justice may give permission only when there is a reasonable ground which is sufficient to find the renewal of the term of sojourn to be appropriate based upon the documents submitted by the foreign national in question.

Structural translation of Paragraph 3

When there has been an application of [the kind in] the preceding paragraph, the Minister of Justice may permit it [the requested renewal of period of sojourn], to the extent there are proper grounds sufficient to recognize a renewal of the period of sojourn as appropriate based on the documents submitted by the concerned alien.

Present law

Unofficial translation of Article 21

[ Alien Control and Refugee Recognition Act
reflecting revisions made as of 2006
as posted on Ministry of Justice website ]

(Extension of Period of Stay)

Article 21. Any alien residing in Japan may, without changing his status of residence, have his period of stay extended.

2. Any alien who wishes to extend his period of stay pursuant to the provision of the preceding paragraph shall apply to the Minister of Justice for the extension of such period in accordance with the procedures provided for by a Ministry of Justice ordinance.

3. When the application provided for in the preceding paragraph has been submitted, the Minister of Justice may grant permission only when there are reasonable grounds to grant extension of the period of stay on the strength of the documents submitted by the alien.

4. When the permission provided for in the preceding paragraph has been granted, if the alien has his passport in his possession, the Minister of Justice shall have an immigration inspector enter the new period of stay in the passport of the alien, and if the alien does not have his passport in his possession shall have the immigration inspector either issue to the alien a certificate of status of residence with the status of residence and new period of stay entered or enter the new period of stay in the previously issued certificate of status of residence. In such case the provisions of the last sentence of Paragraph 4 of the preceding article, shall apply mutatis mutandis.

行政事件訴訟法30条

Concerning items 3 & 4:
Article 30 of the Law on Administrative Litigation

Regarding discretionary decisions of an administrative agency, the court may rescind the decision only when the decision was in excess of the scope of the discretionary power or the discretionary power was abused.

憲法19条，憲法21条

第19条　思想及び良心の自由は、これを侵してはならない。

第21条　集会、結社及び言論、出版その他一切の表現の自由は、これを保障する。
２　検閲は、これをしてはならない。通信の秘密は、これを侵してはならない。

Concerning item 4:
Article 19 of the Constitution

Freedom of thought and conscience should not be violated.

Article 21 of the Constitution

Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed. No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of communication be violated.

憲法第3章

第３章 国民の権利及び義務

Concerning item 5:
Chapter 3 of the Constitution

Chapter 3: Rights and duties of the people

本件上告を棄却する。
上告費用は上告人の負担とする。

Jokoku appeal in the present case is dismissed.
The cost of the jokoku appeal is to be borne by the appellant.

（一）　本件につき原審が確定した事実関係の要旨は、次のとおりである。

（１）　上告人は、アメリカ合衆国国籍を有する外国人であるが、昭和四四年四月二一日その所持する旅券に在韓国日本大使館発行の査証を受けたうえで本邦に入国し、同年五月一０日下関入国管理事務所入国審査官から出入国管理令四条一項一六号、特定の在留資格及びその在留期間を定める省令一項三号に該当する者としての在留資格をもつて在留期間を1年とする上陸許可の証印を受けて本邦に上陸した。

（２）　上告人は、昭和四五年五月一日一年間の在留期間の更新を申請したところ、被上告人は、同年八月一０日「出国準備期間として同年五月一０日から同年九月七日まで一二０日間の在留期間更新を許可する。」との処分をした。そこで、上告人は、更に、同年八月二七日被上告人に対し、同年九月八日から1年間の在留期間の更新を申請したところ、被上告人は、同年九月五日付で、上告人に対し、右更新を適当と認めるに足りる相当な理由があるものとはいえないとして右更新を許可しないとの処分（以下「本件処分」という。）をした。

（３）　被上告人が在留期間の更新を適当と認めるに足りる相当な理由があるものとはいえないとしたのは、次のような上告人の在留期間中の無届転職と政治活動のゆえであつた。

（ア）　上告人は、ベルリツツ語学学校に英語教師として雇用されるため在留資格を認められたのに、入国後わずか17日間で同校を退職し、財団法人英語教育協議会に英語教師として就職し、入国を認められた学校における英語教育に従事しなかつた。

（イ）　上告人は、外国人ベ平連（昭和四四年六月在日外国人数人によつてアメリカのベトナム戦争介入反対、日米安保条約によるアメリカの極東政策への加担反対、在日外国人の政治活動を抑圧する出入国管理法案反対の三つの目的のために結成された団体であるが、いわゆるベ平連からは独立しており、また、会員制度をとつていない。）に所属し、昭和四四年六月から一二月までの間九回にわたりその定例集会に参加し、七月一０日左派華僑青年等が同月二日より一三日まで国鉄新宿駅西口付近において行つた出入国管理法案粉砕ハンガーストライキを支援するため、その目的等を印刷したビラを通行人に配布し、九月六日と一０月四日ベ平連定例集会に参加し、同月一五、一六日ベトナム反戦モラトリアムデー運動に参加して米国大使館にベトナム戦争に反対する目的で抗議に赴き、一二月七日横浜入国者収容所に対する抗議を目的とする示威行進に参加し、翌四五年二月一五日朝霞市における反戦放送集会に参加し、三月一日同市の米軍基地キヤンプドレイク付近における反戦示威行進に参加し、同月一五日ベ平連とともに同市における「大泉市民の集い」という集会に参加して反戦ビラを配布し、五月一五日米軍のカンボジア侵入に反対する目的で米国大使館に抗議のため赴き、同月一六日五・一六ベトナムモラトリアムデー連帯日米人民集会に参加してカンボジア介入反対米国反戦示威行進に参加し、六月一四日代々木公園で行われた安保粉砕労学市民大統一行動集会に参加し、七月四日清水谷公園で行われた東京動員委員会主催の米日人民連帯、米日反戦兵士支援のための集会に参加し、同月七日には羽田空港においてロジヤース国務長官来日反対運動を行うなどの政治的活動を行つた。なお、上告人が参加した集会、集団示威行進等は、いずれも、平和的かつ合法的行動の域を出ていないものであり、上告人の参加の態様は、指導的又は積極的なものではなかつた。

(1) The gist of the facts ascertained by the original instance court is as follows:

(i) The appellant is a foreign national with US citizenship. The appellant arrived in Japan on April 21, 1969 after obtaining a visa issued by the Japanese Embassy in Korea on her passport and disembarked on receiving a stamp for the permission to disembark and stay for one year from the immigration officer of Shimonoseki Immigration Office as a person qualified to stay in Japan on the basis of article 4, para. 1, subpara. 16 of the Cabinet Order on Immigration Control and para. 1, subpara. 3 of the Ministerial Ordinance on the Specific Qualification for Sojourn and the Period of Sojourn.

(ii) The appellant applied for a renewal of the period of sojourn for one year on May 1, 1970. The appellee rendered a decision to "renew the period of sojourn from May 10 to September 7 for 120 days as a period to prepare for departure" on August 10 of the same year. Therefore, the appellant further applied for a renewal of one year from September 8 of the same year. On September 5 of the same year, the appellee rendered a decision (hereinafter, 'the decision in the present case') on September 5 that there was no reasonable grounds to find the renewal to be appropriate and the sojourn was not to be renewed.

(iii) The reason why the appellee decided that there was no reasonable grounds to find the renewal to be appropriate was because of the following change of the job without permission and political activities during the period of sojourn.

(a) Although the appellant had been found qualified for sojourn as an English language teacher at Berlitz Foreign Language School, she resigned from the School after only 17 days of the entry into Japan and found a job in the Foundation for English Education as an English teacher, and thus failed to work as an English teacher at the institution which was authorised at the time of entry into Japan.

(b) The appellant participated in Foreigners' Beheiren [abbreviation for the Peace in Vietnam Movement] (this is an organisation set up by several foreign nationals staying in Japan in June 1968 for the purpose of opposing interference in the Vietnamese War by the United States, to Japan's participation in US Far Eastern policy, and to the draft Immigration Control Law which suppresses political activities of foreign nationals staying in Japan. It is separate from Beheiren, and does not have membership), attended its regular public meeting nine times between June and December 1969, and on July 10th, in support of the hunger strike to destroy the bill on Immigration Control Law organised by young resident Chinese leftists from July 2 to 13 by the West Entrance of Shinjuku Station, distributed leaflets to passers-by in which the purpose of the strike etc. were printed, on September 6 and October 4, took part in the regular public meeting of Beheiren, on October 15 and 16, participated in the Vietnamese War Moratorium Day movement and went to the US Embassy in order to protest against the Vietnamese War, on December 7, took part in public demonstration against Yokohama Detention Centre for Immigrants, on February 15, participated in the public meeting of anti-war broadcasting in Asaka, on March 1, joined the anti-war demonstration near the US Camp Drake, on March 15, took part in a public meeting 'Meeting of Citizens of Oizumi' with Beheiren and distributed anti-war leaflets, on May 15, went to the US Embassy to protest against the invasion of the US military force into Cambodia, on May 16, took part in the May 16 Moratorium Day US-Japan People's Meeting and also in the demonstration against the invasion of the US military force of Cambodia, on June 14, took part in the United Action Meeting of Workers, Students and Citizens against US-Japan Security Treaty held at Yoyogi Park, on July 4, took part in the public meeting for the US-Japan Coalition of People and Support of the anti-war soldiers of US and Japan held at Shimizudani Park, on July 7, joined the protests against the visit of the US Secretary of State, Mr. Rogers, at Haneda Airport, and thus was involved in political activities. It should be added that the public meetings and demonstrations etc. in which the appellant took part were within the scope of peaceful and lawful activities, and the manner of participation of the appellant was not leading or active.

（二）　原審は、自国内に外国人を受け入れるかどうかは基本的にはその国の自由であり、在留期間の更新の申請に対し更新を適当と認めるに足りる相当の理由があるかどうかは、法務大臣の自由な裁量による判断に任されているものであるとし、前記の上告人の一連の政治活動は、在留期間内は外国人にも許される表現の自由の範囲内にあるものとして格別不利益を強制されるものではないが、法務大臣が、在留期間の更新の許否を決するについてこれを日本国及び日本国民にとつて望ましいものではないとし、更新を適当と認めるに足りる相当な理由がないと判断したとしても、それが何ぴとの目からみても妥当でないことが明らかであるとすべき事情のない本件にあつては、法務大臣に任された裁量の範囲内におけるものというべきであり、これをもつて本件処分を違法であるとすることはできない、と判断した。

(2) The second instance court ruled that whether or not to accept a foreign national into the country was basically the prerogative of the host country, and that the decision of whether there is a reasonable ground to find the renewal of sojourn to be appropriate is left to the free discretion of the Minister of Justice. The above-cited political activities of the appellant were within the scope of freedom of expression permissible to foreign nationals on sojourn and no disadvantage should entail. However, if the Minister of Justice finds these activities to be undesirable for Japan and the Japanese people when deciding on the renewal of the term of sojourn and decides that there is no reasonable ground to find the renewal to be appropriate, in this particular case where there is no circumstance which makes the decision obviously inappropriate from the viewpoint of everybody, it should be regarded as being within the scope of discretion granted to the Minister and therefore, the decision in the present case was not against the law.

（三）　論旨は、要するに、（１）自国内に外国人を受け入れるかどうかはその国の自由であり、在留期間の更新の申請に対し更新を適当と認めるに足りる相当な理由があるかどうかは法務大臣の自由な裁量による判断に任されているものであるとした原判決は、憲法二二条一項、出入国管理令21条の解釈適用を誤り、理由不備の違法がある、（２）本件処分のような裁量処分に対する原審の審査の態度、方法には、判例違反、審理不尽、理由不備の違法があり、行政事件訴訟法三０条の解釈の誤りがある、（３）被上告人の本件処分は、裁量権の範囲を逸脱したものであり、憲法の保障を受ける上告人のいわゆる政治活動を理由として外国人に不利益を課するものであつて、本件処分を違法でないとした原判決は、経験則に違背する認定をし、理由不備の違法を犯し、出入国管理令二一条の解釈適用を誤り、憲法一四条、一六条、一九条、二一条に違反するものである、と主張することに帰するものと解される。

(3) The appellant's arguments can be summarised as follows: (i) the original judgment which ruled that whether or not to accept a foreign national into the country was basically the prerogative of the host country, and that the decision of whether there is a reasonable ground to find the renewal of sojourn to be appropriate is left to the free discretion of the Minister of Justice, has erred in the interpretation and application of Article 22 para. 1 of the Constitution, Article 21 of the Cabinet Order on Immigration Control, and is unlawful due to the absence of reasons, (ii) the approach and method of the original instance court in reviewing a discretionary decision such as the decision in the present case are against precedents and are against the law for insufficiency of examination and absence of reasons, and also in contradiction to the interpretation of Article 30 of the Law on Administrative Litigation, (iii) the decision in the present case by the appellee is in excess of the scope of discretion, and imposes disadvantage on a foreign national on the ground of political activities which are guaranteed by the Constitution; the original judgment which found the decision not to be against the law is against empirical rules, lacks reasons, erred in the interpretation and application of Article 21 of the Cabinet Order on Immigration Control, and against articles 14, 16, 19 and 21.

（一）　憲法二二条一項は、日本国内における居住・移転の自由を保障する旨を規定するにとどまり、外国人がわが国に入国することについてはなんら規定していないものであり、このことは、国際慣習法上、国家は外国人を受け入れる義務を負うものではなく、特別の条約がない限り、外国人を自国内に受け入れるかどうか、また、これを受け入れる場合にいかなる条件を付するかを、当該国家が自由に決定することができるものとされていることと、その考えを同じくするものと解される（最高裁昭和二九年（あ）第三五九四号同三二年六月一九日大法廷判決・刑集一一巻六号一六六三頁参照）。したがつて、憲法上、外国人は、わが国に入国する自由を保障されているものでないことはもちろん、所論のように在留の権利ないし引き続き在留することを要求しうる権利を保障されているものでもないと解すべきである。そして、上述の憲法の趣旨を前提として、法律としての効力を有する出入国管理令は、外国人に対し、一定の期間を限り（四条一項一号、二号、一四号の場合を除く。）特定の資格によりわが国への上陸を許すこととしているものであるから、上陸を許された外国人は、その在留期間が経過した場合には当然わが国から退去しなければならない。もつとも、出入国管理令は、当該外国人が在留期間の延長を希望するときには在留期間の更新を申請することができることとしているが（二一条一項、二項）、その申請に対しては法務大臣が「在留期間の更新を適当と認めるに足りる相当の理由があるときに限り」これを許可することができるものと定めている（同条三項）のであるから、出入国管理令上も在留外国人の在留期間の更新が権利として保障されているものでないことは、明らかである。

右のように出入国管理令が原則として一定の期間を限つて外国人のわが国への上陸及び在留を許しその期間の更新は法務大臣がこれを適当と認めるに足りる相当の理由があると判断した場合に限り許可することとしているのは、法務大臣に一定の期間ごとに当該外国人の在留中の状況、在留の必要性・相当性等を審査して在留の許否を決定させようとする趣旨に出たものであり、そして、在留期間の更新事由が概括的に規定されその判断基準が特に定められていないのは、更新事由の有無の判断を法務大臣の裁量に任せ、その裁量権の範囲を広汎なものとする趣旨からであると解される。すなわち、法務大臣は、在留期間の更新の許否を決するにあたつては、外国人に対する出入国の管理及び在留の規制の目的である国内の治安と善良の風俗の維持、保健・衛生の確保、労働市場の安定などの国益の保持の見地に立つて、申請者の申請事由の当否のみならず、当該外国人の在留中の一切の行状、国内の政治・経済・社会等の諸事情、国際情勢、外交関係、国際礼譲など諸般の事情をしんしやくし、時宜に応じた的確な判断をしなければならないのであるが、このような判断は、事柄の性質上、出入国管理行政の責任を負う法務大臣の裁量に任せるのでなければとうてい適切な結果を期待することができないものと考えられる。このような点にかんがみると、出入国管理令二一条三項所定の「在留期間の更新を適当と認めるに足りる相当の理由」があるかどうかの判断における法務大臣の裁量権の範囲が広汎なものとされているのは当然のことであつて、所論のように上陸拒否事由又は退去強制事由に準ずる事由に該当しない限り更新申請を不許可にすることは許されないと解すべきものではない。

(1) Article 22, para. 1 of the Constitution merely provides for the guarantee of freedom of residence and movement within Japan and has nothing to do with the entry of a foreign national into Japan. This is based upon the same view that under international customary law, the state has no duty of accepting a foreign national, and unless there is a specific treaty, the state may freely decide whether to accept a foreign national into the country, and if a foreign national is to be accepted, on what condition this should be allowed (Supreme Court case 1954 (A) Case No. 3594, Judgment of the Grand Bench, Supreme Court June 19, 1957 (Keishu 11-6-1663). Therefore, it goes without saying that foreign nationals are not guaranteed the right to enter Japan, but also are not guaranteed the right to stay or continue to stay in Japan as the appellant argues. On the basis of the above-cited interpretation of the Constitution, the Cabinet Order on Immigration Control which has the same effect as law makes it a rule that foreign nationals are allowed to disembark in Japan with specific qualifications for a specific period (except for Article 4, para. 1, subparas 1, 2, and 14). Therefore, the foreign national who was allowed to disembark, must leave Japan as a matter of course on expiry of the period of sojourn. Admittedly, the Cabinet Order on the Control of Immigration provides that if a foreign national desires to extend the period of stay, this person may apply for renewal of the period of sojourn (Art. 21, paras. 1 & 2), but it also provides that the Minister of Justice may give permission "only when there is a reasonable ground to acknowledge that the renewal of the period of sojourn is appropriate" (ibid., para. 3). Therefore, it is evident that also under the Cabinet Order on Immigration Control, the renewal of the term by a foreign national who is staying in Japan is not guaranteed as a right.

The reason why the Cabinet Order on Immigration Control allows the disembarkation and sojourn of foreign nationals only for a fixed period and the renewal is allowed only when the Minister of Justice determines that there is a reasonable ground to acknowledge that the renewal of the period of sojourn is appropriate is because the law is designed to allow the Minister of Justice to make this decision by taking into account the circumstances of the stay, necessity and reasonableness of the stay etc. after a fixed period. The reason why the grounds for renewal of the period of stay are provided in a general manner without specific criteria for determination is because the law intends to leave the determination of the presence or absence of grounds for renewal to the discretion of the Minister of Justice and to make the discretion sufficiently broad. The Minister of Justice, when deciding whether the renewal of the period of sojourn should be allowed or not, must consider not only the appropriateness of the application by the foreign national in question, the entire behaviour of the foreign national, political, economic and social circumstances within Japan as well as the international situation, diplomatic relations, international comity and other circumstances from the viewpoint of the maintenance of public security and good morals in Japan, ensurance of health and hygiene, stability of the labour market and other interest of the state which are the purpose of immigration control and regulation of sojourn of foreign nationals, and make a timely and accurate decision. An appropriate result cannot be expected unless such a decision, due to its nature, is left to the discretion of the Minister of Justice who is responsible for the administration of immigration control. From this viewpoint, it is only natural that the discretion be given to the Minister of Justice in deciding whether there is a "reasonable ground to acknowledge that the renewal of the period of sojourn is appropriate". It should not be considered that it is not allowed to refuse renewal unless there are grounds similar to those for refusing disembarkation or grounds for deportation as the appellant argues.

（二）　ところで、行政庁がその裁量に任された事項について裁量権行使の準則を定めることがあつても、このような準則は、本来、行政庁の処分の妥当性を確保するためのものなのであるから、処分が右準則に違背して行われたとしても、原則として当不当の問題を生ずるにとどまり、当然に違法となるものではない。処分が違法となるのは、それが法の認める裁量権の範囲をこえ又はその濫用があつた場合に限られるのであり、また、その場合に限り裁判所は当該処分を取り消すことができるものであつて、行政事件訴訟法三０条の規定はこの理を明らかにしたものにほかならない。もつとも、法が処分を行政庁の裁量に任せる趣旨、目的、範囲は各種の処分によつて一様ではなく、これに応じて裁量権の範囲をこえ又はその濫用があつたものとして違法とされる場合もそれぞれ異なるものであり、各種の処分ごとにこれを検討しなければならないが、これを出入国管理令21条3項に基づく法務大臣の「在留期間の更新を適当と認めるに足りる相当の理由」があるかどうかの判断の場合についてみれば、右判断に関する前述の法務大臣の裁量権の性質にかんがみ、その判断が全く事実の基礎を欠き又は社会通念上著しく妥当性を欠くことが明らかである場合に限り、裁量権の範囲をこえ又はその濫用があつたものとして違法となるものというべきである。したがつて、裁判所は、法務大臣の右判断についてそれが違法となるかどうかを審理、判断するにあたつては、右判断が法務大臣の裁量権の行使としてされたものであることを前提として、その判断の基礎とされた重要な事実に誤認があること等により右判断が全く事実の基礎を欠くかどうか、又は事実に対する評価が明白に合理性を欠くこと等により右判断が社会通念に照らし著しく妥当性を欠くことが明らかであるかどうかについて審理し、それが認められる場合に限り、右判断が裁量権の範囲をこえ又はその濫用があつたものとして違法であるとすることができるものと解するのが、相当である。なお、所論引用の当裁判所昭和三七年（オ）第七五二号同四四年七月一一日第二小法廷判決（民集二三巻八号一四七０頁）は、事案を異にし本件に適切なものではなく、その余の判例は、右判示するところとその趣旨を異にするものではない。

(2) If an administrative agency adopts rules for the exercise of its discretionary power, such rules are intended to ensure the appropriateness of the decisions of the agency, and therefore, even if a decision were made in contradiction to such rules, in principle, it may generate the problem of appropriateness of the decision, but the decision is not as a matter of course, against the law. Instances where the decision becomes unlawful are limited to cases where the decision was made in excess of the discretionary power granted by law or where there was an abuse of discretion. Only in such cases may the court annul the decision. Article 30 of the Law on Administrative Litigation makes this rule clear. However, since the reason, purpose, and scope of discretion granted by law to an administrative agency differ, and circumstances in which the decision is found unlawful for excess or abuse of discretion vary, each kind of decision has to be examined individually. As far as the decision of the Minister o f Justice concerning the existence of a "reasonable ground to acknowledge that the renewal of the period of sojourn is appropriate" is concerned, in the light of the nature of the discretionary power of the Minister as referred to above, it should be regarded as unlawful as excess or abuse of discretion only when it totally lacks factual basis or when it is evident that it significantly lacks appropriateness in the light of socially accepted views. Therefore, the court, when examining and deciding the legality of the above-cited decision of the Minister of Justice, assuming that the decision has been made as an exercise of the discretionary power of the Minister of Justice, must examine whether the factual basis for the decision was totally missing or not, such as in cases where there was an error in the material fact which served as a basis of the decision, or whether it is evident that the decision significantly lacks appropriateness in the light of socially accepted views such as in cases where the assessment of facts was evidently unreasonable. It is reasonable to conclude that only when this is answered in the affirmative, can the decision be found to be in excess of discretion or abuse of discretion and therefore unlawful. The judgment of the petit bench of the Supreme Court on Case 1962 (O) No. 752, July 11, 1969 (Minshu 23-8-1470) concerns different circumstances and is unsuitable for the present case, and other precedents are not different from the present judgment.

（三）　以上の見地に立つて被上告人の本件処分の適否について検討する。

前記の事実によれば、上告人の在留期間更新申請に対し被上告人が更新を適当と認めるに足りる相当な理由があるものとはいえないとしてこれを許可しなかつたのは、上告人の在留期間中の無届転職と政治活動のゆえであつたというのであり、原判決の趣旨に徴すると、なかでも政治活動が重視されたものと解される。

思うに、憲法第三章の諸規定による基本的人権の保障は、権利の性質上日本国民のみをその対象としていると解されるものを除き、わが国に在留する外国人に対しても等しく及ぶものと解すべきであり、政治活動の自由についても、わが国の政治的意思決定又はその実施に影響を及ぼす活動等外国人の地位にかんがみこれを認めることが相当でないと解されるものを除き、その保障が及ぶものと解するのが、相当である。しかしながら、前述のように、外国人の在留の許否は国の裁量にゆだねられ、わが国に在留する外国人は、憲法上わが国に在留する権利ないし引き続き在留することを要求することができる権利を保障されているものではなく、ただ、出入国管理令上法務大臣がその裁量により更新を適当と認めるに足りる相当の理由があると判断する場合に限り在留期間の更新を受けることができる地位を与えられているにすぎないものであり、したがつて、外国人に対する憲法の基本的人権の保障は、右のような外国人在留制度のわく内で与えられているにすぎないものと解するのが相当であつて、在留の許否を決する国の裁量を拘束するまでの保障、すなわち、在留期間中の憲法の基本的人権の保障を受ける行為を在留期間の更新の際に消極的な事情としてしんしやくされないことまでの保障が与えられているものと解することはできない。在留中の外国人の行為が合憲合法な場合でも、法務大臣がその行為を当不当の面から日本国にとつて好ましいものとはいえないと評価し、また、右行為から将来当該外国人が日本国の利益を害する行為を行うおそれがある者であると推認することは、右行為が上記のような意味において憲法の保障を受けるものであるからといつてなんら妨げられるものではない。

前述の上告人の在留期間中のいわゆる政治活動は、その行動の態様などからみて直ちに憲法の保障が及ばない政治活動であるとはいえない。しかしながら、上告人の右活動のなかには、わが国の出入国管理政策に対する非難行動、あるいはアメリカ合衆国の極東政策ひいては日本国とアメリカ合衆国との間の相互協力及び安全保障条約に対する抗議行動のようにわが国の基本的な外交政策を非難し日米間の友好関係に影響を及ぼすおそれがないとはいえないものも含まれており、被上告人が、当時の内外の情勢にかんがみ、上告人の右活動を日本国にとつて好ましいものではないと評価し、また、上告人の右活動から同人を将来日本国の利益を害する行為を行うおそれがある者と認めて、在留期間の更新を適当と認めるに足りる相当の理由があるものとはいえないと判断したとしても、その事実の評価が明白に合理性を欠き、その判断が社会通念上著しく妥当性を欠くことが明らかであるとはいえず、他に被上告人の判断につき裁量権の範囲をこえ又はその濫用があつたことをうかがわせるに足りる事情の存在が確定されていない本件においては、被上告人の本件処分を違法であると判断することはできないものといわなければならない。また、被上告人が前述の上告人の政治活動をしんしやくして在留期間の更新を適当と認めるに足りる相当の理由があるものとはいえないとし本件処分をしたことによつて、なんら所論の違憲の問題は生じないというべきである。

According to the facts cited above, the reason why the appellee has decided that there was no "reasonable ground to acknowledge that the renewal of the period of sojourn is appropriate" and refused renewal of the term of sojourn against the application of the appellant was because of the failure to report the change of job and political activities during the sojourn, and it can be surmised from the original judgment that emphasis was laid on the political activities.

It should be understood that the guarantee of fundamental rights included in Chapter Three of the Constitution extends also to foreign nationals staying in Japan except for those rights, which by their nature, are understood to address Japanese nationals only. This applies to political activities, except for those activities which are considered to be inappropriate by taking into account the status of the person as a foreign national, such as activities which have influence on the political decision-making and its implementation in Japan. However, as mentioned above, permission of sojourn of foreign nationals in Japan is left to the discretion of the state. Foreign nationals staying in Japan are not guaranteed the right to stay in Japan or request to continue to stay in Japan under the Constitution, and merely granted a status by which they can have the period of stay renewed only when the Minister of Justice, by his discretion, determines that there is a "reasonable ground to acknowledge th at the renewal of the period of sojourn is appropriate". Guarantee of fundamental rights to foreign nationals by the Constitution should be understood to be granted only within the scope of such a system of the sojourn of foreign nationals and does not extend so far as to bind the exercise of discretionary power of the state, i.e. does not include guarantee that acts which are guaranteed as fundamental human rights under the Constitution during the sojourn should not be considered as negative circumstances in renewing the term of sojourn. Even if the activities of a foreign national are constitutional and lawful, the Minister of Justice is by no means hindered from assessing those activities as undesirable in terms of appropriateness for Japan, and from assuming from such activities that this foreign national may act against the interest of Japan, despite the fact that such activities of the foreign national are guaranteed by the Constitution in the above sense.

Judging from the manner of activities, above-cited activities of the appellant during the period of sojourn cannot immediately be regarded as activities to which constitutional guarantee does not extend. However, it cannot be denied that the above-cited activities of the appellant include those criticising the immigration policy of Japan, or criticising the basic foreign policy of Japan or protests against the Far-Eastern policy of the United States as well as the Treaty on Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States which criticise the basic diplomatic policy of Japan and may affect the friendly relationship between the United States and Japan. Even if the Minister of Justice, by considering the international and domestic situation at that time, having found the activities of the appellant to be undesirable to Japan and also having found the appellant to be a person who may act against the interest of Japan in the future, decided that there was no reasonable ground to find it appropriate to renew the term of sojourn, it cannot be regarded as an excess of the scope of discretionary power or abuse of discretionary power. In the present case, where there are no other grounds on which the existence of circumstances in which excess or abuse of discretion can be assumed, the decision of the appellee in the present case cannot be found to be against the law. There is no issue of unconstitutionality as argued by the appellant on the part of the appellee for finding that there was no reasonable ground to acknowledge that the renewal of the period of sojourn is appropriate by taking into account political activities of the appellant.

（四）　以上述べたところと同旨に帰する原審の判断は、正当であつて、所論引用の各判例にもなんら違反するものではなく、原判決に所論の違憲、違法はない。論旨は、上述したところと異なる見解に基づいて原判決を非難するものであつて、採用することができない。

(4) The judgment of the original instance court which is in line with the above is justifiable and is not against the judgements cited by the appellant, and therefore, the original judgement is neither unconstitutional or illegal. The argument of the appellant blames the original judgment for views different from the above, and cannot be accepted.

原審が当事者双方のﾂ述を記載するにつき所論の方法をとつたからといつて、判決の事実摘示として欠けるところはないものと｢うべきであり、原判決に所論の違法はない。論旨は、採用することができない。

よつて、行政膜書i訟法七条、民訴法四０一条、九五条、八九条に従い、裁判官全員一致の意見でA主文のとおり判決する。

最高裁判所大法廷
  裁判長裁判官　岡原昌男
    裁判官　江里口清雄
    裁判官　大塚喜一郎
    裁判官　高辻正己
    裁判官　吉田豊
    裁判官　団藤重光
    裁判官　本林譲
    裁判官　服部高顕
    裁判官　環昌一
    裁判官　栗本一夫
    裁判官　藤崎万里
    裁判官　本山亨
裁判官岸盛一、同天野武一、
同岸上康夫は、退官のため
署名押捺することができない。
    裁判長裁判官　岡原昌男

The method adopted by the original instance court in recording the statement of both parties did not result in a defective statement of facts of the judgment, and therefore, the original judgment is not against the law as argued by the appellant. The arguments of the appellant cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the justices unanimously decide as the main text in accordance with Article 7 of the Law on Administrative Litigation, articles 401, 95, and 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Presiding Judge, Chief Justice
        OKAHARA, Masao
Justice KISHI, Seiichi
        AMANO, Buichi
        KISHIGAMI, Yasuo
        ERIKUCHI, Kiyoo
        OTSUKA, Kiichiro
        TAKATSUJI, Masami
        YOSHIDA, Yutaka
        DANDO, Shigemitsu
        MOTOBAYASHI, Yuzuru
        HATTORI, Takaaki
        TAMAKI, Shoichi
        KURIMOTO, Kazuo
        FUJISAKI, Masato
        MOTOYAMA, Toru

* Translated by Sir Ernest Satow Chair of Japanese Law, University College, University of London