In Japan, the screening of applications for residency and refugee status is administered by the Immigration Services Agency under the Ministry of Justice. These procedures cover a wide variety of cases, depending on the applicant’s country of origin, purpose of stay, and visa category. Traditionally, the legal framework has recognized wide administrative discretion in this area, where case officers exercise professional judgment based on their expertise.
However, amid recent trends in judicial review and growing demands for transparency and accountability in administrative processes, this conventional structure is undergoing a transformation. In particular, as courts increasingly require what is known as a “substantive procedural control review” (jittai-teki handan katei tōsei shinsa), the process by which administrative decisions are reached—rather than just the final outcome—is now subject to legal scrutiny. This places greater emphasis on the objectivity, consistency, and rationality of each individual decision.
Given this development, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in residency and refugee screening holds immense potential—not merely as a means of improving administrative efficiency but also as a tool for strengthening the legitimacy and accountability of decision-making. This paper begins by explaining the concept of substantive procedural control review and then explores how AI can be deployed effectively within that framework.
1. What Is Substantive Procedural Control Review?
Substantive procedural control review refers to a mode of judicial or administrative oversight that evaluates not just the legality of the final decision but also the rationality of the decision-making process itself. This includes whether the administration collected sufficient information, whether it evaluated the evidence appropriately, and whether the reasoning behind its judgment is coherent and consistent.
Traditionally, courts have respected wide administrative discretion in areas such as immigration and refugee recognition—domains considered closely linked to state sovereignty. Judicial review would often defer to the agency’s decision unless it involved an abuse or overreach of discretion.
However, in fields where fundamental human rights and international obligations are at stake—such as refugee protection under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol—courts are no longer satisfied with superficial reviews. They now scrutinize whether the process leading to administrative decisions is fact-based, consistent, and aligned with procedural fairness.
This evolution in legal standards implies that discretionary decisions by immigration officers must be both demonstrably rational and subject to external review. As such, a structural shift toward transparent and auditable decision-making processes becomes essential.
2. The Limits of Administrative Discretion and Challenges in Practice
Under these new legal and social expectations, the scope of discretion afforded to immigration authorities is no longer broad and unchecked. In the refugee recognition process, for instance, the government is bound by international humanitarian obligations, and arbitrary denial of refugee status may attract global criticism or legal consequences.
In reality, Japan’s immigration screening and refugee recognition systems face several practical challenges: long processing times, lack of transparency in decision-making, and overly personalized evaluations are commonly cited problems. Japan’s refugee recognition rate remains extremely low compared to other developed countries, which has drawn international scrutiny.
Moreover, administrative burdens continue to increase. Immigration officers must handle a growing volume of applications with limited human resources, making it difficult to maintain quality, fairness, and speed in processing. These factors contribute to delays, inconsistent judgments, and potentially unjust outcomes.
3. The Potential of AI Utilization in Immigration Procedures
In this context, AI has the potential to be a transformative tool. Its utility extends beyond mere automation and could become a structural pillar of fair, efficient, and consistent decision-making. The key areas where AI could contribute include:
(1) Visualization and Recording of Decision Processes
AI systems can record how they process data and arrive at a conclusion. This allows the administrative agency to explain its reasoning clearly, providing transparency for both internal audits and judicial reviews under substantive procedural control standards.
(2) Consistency Through Case Comparison
AI can reference large datasets of past decisions to identify comparable cases, helping to ensure consistency and prevent arbitrary or biased judgments. It can flag inconsistencies and highlight precedent cases that may inform the current application.
(3) Document Processing and Risk Assessment
AI can automate the extraction and analysis of information from submitted documents. It can detect discrepancies, identify potentially fraudulent claims, and assess overall risk, allowing officers to allocate human resources more effectively.
(4) Efficiency in Case Management
By automating repetitive tasks, AI can dramatically shorten processing times. What currently takes months or even years—particularly for refugee applications—could be reduced significantly, improving the experience for applicants and the efficiency of the agency.
4. Cautions and Institutional Challenges
While the advantages of AI are significant, there are critical risks and ethical issues that must be addressed:
- Avoiding Black-Box Decision-Making: If the reasoning behind AI judgments is opaque, it becomes difficult to subject decisions to legal or administrative review. Ensuring explainability in AI algorithms is essential.
- Preventing Bias: If past human decisions were biased, the AI may learn and reproduce those biases. Careful selection of training data and rigorous testing are needed to avoid discriminatory outcomes, particularly in sensitive areas like gender, race, and nationality.
- Maintaining Human Oversight: AI should remain a support tool, not a substitute for human judgment. Final decisions must still be made by qualified officials, and any discrepancies between AI recommendations and human assessments must be examined and justified.
- Legal and Ethical Frameworks: Introducing AI into legal decision-making requires a thorough overhaul of administrative law, including mechanisms for accountability, personal data protection, and avenues for appeal in the event of AI error.
5. Future Directions and Policy Proposals
The integration of AI in immigration and refugee screening must be approached strategically. The following proposals provide a roadmap for ethical and effective implementation:
- Pilot Programs in Low-Dispute Areas
Start by introducing AI decision-support systems in standardized, low-risk procedures, such as visa renewals. Results from these pilots should be publicly disclosed and subject to independent evaluation. - Built-In Transparency and Auditability
Ensure AI systems can explain how specific data influenced a decision. These features are essential for compliance with substantive procedural control requirements and for officers who must justify their final rulings. - Independent Oversight
Establish third-party review panels composed of legal experts, academics, and representatives from civil society to monitor AI fairness and accuracy. This oversight should include periodic audits and recommendations. - Participation in Global Rulemaking
As AI becomes increasingly central to immigration management worldwide, Japan should move from a passive to an active role in shaping international norms and standards, leveraging its technological strengths.
Conclusion
The emergence of substantive procedural control review signals a new era in which administrative decision-making must be rational, transparent, and consistent. In the traditionally discretion-heavy domains of immigration and refugee policy, this represents a significant shift.
AI holds promise not only as a means of improving operational efficiency but also as a structural safeguard for legitimacy and fairness in administrative processes. Used appropriately, AI can help eliminate unjust disparities, ensure objective decision-making, and reduce the burden on immigration officers.
That said, AI deployment must be accompanied by robust legal and institutional safeguards. If integrated with care, transparency, and ethical oversight, AI can serve as both a tool of modernization and a guarantor of justice in immigration governance. As Japan faces rising international mobility and labor demands, strategic use of AI will be essential in creating a humane, lawful, and efficient immigration system.