The Hokusai wave of immigration reform continues to roll across Japan.
Following recent changes affecting the Business Manager Visa, work visas and the treatment of public obligations, attention is now turning to one of Japan’s most valuable immigration statuses: permanent residence.
Reports suggest that the government is considering clearer income thresholds, stronger pension requirements, Japanese-language expectations and closer examination of whether applicants can support themselves over the long term.
However, the ink is not yet dry. In fact, it has not yet reached the page.
These remain proposals and informed speculation, not confirmed legal requirements. The final rules could look very different, and some of the reported measures could be amended, delayed or abandoned entirely.
Nevertheless, the direction of the wave is becoming clearer. Japan appears to be moving towards a more measurable and demanding permanent residence system, with greater emphasis on financial security, social integration and long-term compliance.
What are the current requirements?
Permanent residence allows a foreign national to remain in Japan indefinitely without being tied to a particular employer, profession or business activity.
Under the current guidelines, applicants are generally assessed according to three broad principles:
- Good conduct
- The ability to maintain a stable and independent livelihood
- Whether granting permanent residence is considered beneficial to Japan
Most applicants must have lived continuously in Japan for at least ten years, including at least five years under an eligible work-based or residence-based status. Shorter routes are available in certain circumstances, including for spouses of Japanese nationals or permanent residents and qualifying highly skilled professionals.
Applicants must also have properly fulfilled their public obligations. This includes paying income tax, resident tax, pension contributions and health insurance premiums correctly and on time.
Immigration has become increasingly strict about payment deadlines. Settling an overdue amount before applying does not necessarily erase the original late payment. The current guidelines expressly state that an obligation paid after its original deadline will generally be assessed negatively.
At Kreston ProWorks, we have seen applications affected by payments made only a day late or by minor underpayments that would barely cover a coffee. In permanent residence applications, the size of the mistake is not always as important as the fact that the deadline was missed.
The existing system already casts a wide net. The proposals now being discussed could tighten it considerably.
A possible income threshold
One of the most significant reported changes is the introduction of a clearer minimum-income requirement.
At present, there is no single published salary that guarantees permanent residence. Immigration considers the applicant’s overall circumstances, including income, employment stability, savings, household size and number of dependants.
Under one possible reform, applicants could be expected to earn more than a defined average household-income benchmark.
That sounds straightforward, but the devil is in the definition.
Would Immigration examine the applicant’s individual salary or the household’s total income? Would a spouse’s earnings count? Would the threshold vary according to location or family size? Could savings compensate for lower employment income? Would entrepreneurs be assessed differently from salaried employees?
Then there are benefits that do not appear neatly on a salary certificate. Free housing, company-paid accommodation and other allowances can materially improve a person’s financial position. In some cases, accepting a lower salary in exchange for company-provided housing may leave the applicant financially better off while reducing their apparent income on paper.
Investments and property create further questions. An applicant earning JPY 4 million with substantial investments and no debt could be financially stronger than someone earning JPY 7 million while supporting several dependants and carrying significant liabilities.
A rigid income line would create clear winners and losers. Until the government publishes a calculation method, any precise threshold remains speculation.
The mysterious 30-year pension benchmark
The most eye-catching part of the proposal is a possible requirement connected to 30 years of pension coverage.
This has understandably caused concern among foreign residents. Some reports have been interpreted as meaning that applicants would need to have paid into the Japanese pension system for 30 years before becoming eligible for permanent residence.
That interpretation is probably too simplistic.
The reported proposal appears to focus on whether an applicant’s expected retirement resources are comparable to the pension that might be accumulated after 30 years of participation in Employees’ Pension Insurance.
A literal 30-year Japanese contribution requirement would make permanent residence almost impossible for anyone arriving later in life. A person entering Japan at 45 could not complete 30 years of contributions until the age of 75.
Japan’s ageing population may be pushing the retirement grind further into the distance, but requiring applicants to remain chained at their desks until their late seventies would be an extreme interpretation even by Japanese standards.
A projected retirement-resources test would be more practical, but also considerably more complicated.
How could the pension test work?
Several scenarios are possible.
Scenario 1: Immigration examines projected Japanese pension income
Immigration could review an applicant’s current pension record, salary and expected future contributions to estimate their retirement benefits.
Under this model, a younger employee with only a few years of contributions might still qualify if continued employment would be expected to produce an adequate pension.
The assessment would be less about looking in the rear-view mirror and more about examining the road ahead.
Scenario 2: Only accumulated pension rights are considered
A stricter approach could focus on the pension rights already earned when the application is submitted.
This would favour people who entered Japan at a younger age and disadvantage older arrivals, even when they have high salaries, overseas pensions or substantial savings.
It could also create an obvious contradiction. An applicant might already possess enough assets to retire comfortably but still appear weak under a test focused narrowly on Japanese pension contributions.
Scenario 3: Savings bridge the gap
Reports suggest that applicants whose projected pension falls below the benchmark could potentially compensate with savings or other assets.
This would make the system more flexible, but it would open another box of unanswered questions.
Would overseas cash count? Would listed shares qualify? What about property, private pensions and jointly held assets? Could an applicant rely on a spouse’s savings? How would Immigration value foreign assets when exchange rates are moving?
A person with JPY 50 million in investments may be financially stronger than someone with a larger pension but no savings. Whether the proposed system would recognise that remains unknown.
Scenario 4: A complete retirement-resources assessment
The broadest approach would examine the applicant’s full retirement position, including:
- Japanese public pension
- Overseas state pensions
- Employer pension schemes
- Private retirement accounts
- Investments
- Property
- Cash savings
- Spousal resources
This would provide the most realistic picture of financial security. It would also create the greatest administrative burden.
Permanent residence applications could begin to resemble miniature retirement audits, complete with pension forecasts, overseas statements, asset valuations and exchange-rate calculations.
Can overseas pension contributions count?
This is where the water becomes particularly cloudy.
Japan has social security agreements with several countries. Depending on the agreement, pension coverage periods in Japan and the partner country can sometimes be combined to help a person meet the minimum period required to qualify for pension benefits.
For example, someone without enough Japanese contribution years to qualify for a Japanese pension may be able to use recognised contribution periods from another country to satisfy the eligibility requirement.
However, totalisation does not normally mean that Japan pays a pension based on all of those combined years.
Each country generally calculates and pays benefits according to the contribution periods completed within its own system. Foreign coverage may help establish eligibility for a Japanese pension, but the Japanese pension amount is ordinarily calculated according to the person’s actual Japanese coverage.
There is also no single rule applying to every country. Japan’s agreements with the United Kingdom, South Korea, China and Italy, for example, currently address dual coverage but do not provide for pension-period totalisation.
This creates a major unanswered question:
If Immigration introduces a 30-year pension benchmark for permanent residence, will recognised overseas contribution periods count?
At present, the answer is unclear.
Immigration could allow foreign contribution periods to count where a social security agreement permits totalisation. It could instead examine the actual overseas pension income expected by the applicant. Foreign pensions might be treated as supplementary retirement resources rather than additional Japanese contribution years.
Alternatively, Immigration could focus solely on projected Japanese pension benefits.
Social security agreements were created to coordinate pension systems, not to determine immigration eligibility. The fact that overseas contribution periods can be recognised for pension purposes does not automatically mean that Immigration must recognise them for permanent residence.
Applicants should therefore not assume that ten years of contributions in another country will be treated as ten years towards the reported 30-year benchmark.
The final guidelines will need to explain how overseas state pensions, employer pensions and private retirement accounts will be treated. Until then, this remains one of the largest blank spaces in the proposal.
Could Japanese-language ability become a formal requirement?
Another possible change is a clearer Japanese-language or integration requirement.
At present, most permanent residence applicants are not required to submit a Japanese Language Proficiency Test certificate. Language ability may strengthen an application, but there is no universal JLPT threshold.
A formal language requirement would be easy to measure, but language tests do not always reflect practical integration.
Someone may manage employees, raise children and conduct daily life entirely in Japanese without holding a recent language certificate. Another applicant may pass a written examination while struggling to hold an ordinary conversation.
The government would also need to decide whether the same standard should apply to every applicant, including elderly residents, spouses, highly skilled professionals and people with disabilities.
Could spouse-based permanent residence become more difficult?
Spouses of Japanese nationals and permanent residents currently benefit from a shorter route to permanent residence.
Under the current guidelines, the marriage must generally have continued for at least three years, with the applicant residing continuously in Japan for at least one year.
Reports suggest that the government is considering extending these periods, potentially to five years of marriage and three years of residence in Japan.
This has not been confirmed.
Even if the residence periods remain unchanged, spouse applications could still face closer scrutiny of household finances, taxes, pension payments, health insurance and the genuine continuation of the marriage.
Marriage may provide a shorter road to permanent residence, but it is unlikely to provide a detour around the government’s wider focus on compliance and financial security.
The confirmed change applicants should not overlook
While the wider reforms remain proposals, one change has already been officially announced.
From 1 April 2027, applicants will generally need to hold the longest period of stay available under their current residence status. The existing practice of treating a three-year period as sufficient will end, subject to a limited transitional arrangement for certain existing three-year visa holders.
This could become an important gatekeeping requirement.
An applicant may have sufficient income, a clean tax record and adequate pension coverage, but still be unable to qualify because Immigration has only granted them a shorter period of stay.
The road ahead
Japan’s permanent residence system appears to be approaching a crossroads.
One road leads towards clearer and more predictable requirements. The other risks creating a maze of income statistics, pension projections, language certificates and asset calculations.
The treatment of overseas pension contributions is particularly uncertain. Foreign contribution periods can sometimes be combined with Japanese periods to establish eligibility for pension benefits, but they do not normally increase the Japanese pension as though all contributions had been made in Japan.
Whether those overseas periods or benefits will count towards a permanent residence benchmark remains unanswered.
The Hokusai wave has not yet broken, but it is gathering height. Foreign residents considering permanent residence should keep their records clean, their payments punctual and their documents close at hand while waiting to see where the wave finally lands.
Disclaimer
As the proposals develop, applicants should seek advice from qualified immigration professionals before making major decisions based on headlines or speculation. Kreston ProWorks works with immigration specialists who can assess an applicant’s circumstances and provide support based on the rules in force at the time.
This article is based on information reported and publicly available as of 3rd August 2026. Please check the Immigration Services Agency’s website or with a qualified immigration professional for the latest information.
Sources
- Immigration Services Agency of Japan, Guidelines for Permission for Permanent Residence, revised 24 February 2026.
- The Japan Times, Japan to impose tougher requirements for permanent residency, reports say, 26 July 2026, reporting on the Immigration Services Agency’s draft guidelines.
- The Japan Times, Tough new permanent residency measures trigger concern in Japan, 27 July 2026.
- Japan Pension Service, International Social Security Agreements and Special Provisions for Japanese Pension Payments.
- Japan Pension Service, Status of Agreements in Force.