This is not legal advice and I am not qualified to give it. It is a hiring note about something more mundane and, for employers, more immediately actionable: the things we say to candidates that we have no business saying, and which just became visibly unsupportable.
Japan’s Immigration Services Agency published draft revisions to the permanent residence guidelines and accepted public comment through 4 September 2026. Implementation is planned for 1 October 2026.
The draft introduces three substantive requirements. An income expectation above the average Japanese household income. A pension benchmark: expected benefits comparable to thirty years of contributions to the employee pension system at the applicant’s income level. And integration criteria covering Japanese language ability, understanding of Japanese laws and social systems, good conduct and financial self-sufficiency without becoming a public burden. For spouses of Japanese nationals or permanent residents, the requirement rises to five years of marriage and three years of residence.
On timing, the draft is unusual: income requirements and public-burden assessments may be applied to applications filed as early as April 2026, while the remaining criteria are expected to apply from April 2027.
Expert view #1 — the distinction employers keep collapsing
Before anything else: this is about permanent residence, not about work status. Engineers work in Japan on a separate track that this draft does not change. An engineer can hold valid work status for a decade and never meet permanent residence criteria; the two are related only in the sense that both involve the same agency.
That distinction is collapsed constantly in recruiting conversations, and almost always in the employer’s favour. “Japan is very open to foreign engineers” and “you can settle here permanently” are different claims, and the first one being true has never made the second one true.
I do not think this is usually dishonest. It is that most people making offers have never read either set of criteria, and they repeat what a colleague said about a case from three years ago. That was survivable when the rules were stable. It is not survivable when implementation lands on 1 October and part of the framework may reach back to applications already filed.
The 4 promises I removed from our materials
Promise 1 — “Stay five years and permanent residence follows naturally”
This was never accurate and is now conspicuously so. Tenure has never been the binding constraint. What the draft makes explicit is that the binding constraints are financial and contributory — and neither is something an employment relationship delivers by simply continuing.
The replacement sentence is shorter and works better: “Permanent residence is a separate process from your employment. We can tell you what we do and do not do; we cannot tell you what the outcome will be.”
Promise 2 — “We can help you get it”
Most employers cannot, in any meaningful sense. What an employer actually controls is a small, specific list: correct and timely paperwork, accurate enrolment in social insurance, employment certificates issued without delay, and salary that is what it says it is.
That list is genuinely valuable, and it is worth stating precisely rather than gesturing at. A candidate who has been through this before will recognise immediately whether you know what you are talking about.
Promise 3 — “It usually takes about X months”
Timelines quoted from a colleague’s experience two years ago carry no information about a case filed under revised guidelines in October. Quoting them is the fastest way to be remembered as the company that got it wrong.
Promise 4 — “The current criteria are what will apply to you”
This is the one the draft specifically undermines. With income requirements potentially reaching applications filed from April 2026 and other criteria expected from April 2027, the applicable framework depends on filing date in a way that nobody in a hiring conversation should be improvising about.
Expert view #2 — why the pension criterion is the one that bites
Of the three requirements, income is the one that attracts attention and pension is the one that will actually decide cases.
Income is fixable. It is a number, it can be raised, and for senior engineers in Tokyo it is frequently already above the threshold implied by an average-household comparison.
The pension benchmark is different in kind. Asking for expected benefits comparable to thirty years of employee pension contributions at the applicant’s income level introduces a variable that salary cannot resolve: time already elapsed. An engineer who arrived in Japan at thirty-two has a bounded number of contribution years available, and no offer letter changes that.
The uncomfortable implication is that this criterion falls hardest on precisely the population most employers court — experienced mid-career hires with strong earnings and short Japanese contribution histories. The junior who arrived at twenty-four is in a structurally better position than the staff engineer who arrived at thirty-six on triple the salary.
I want to be careful here: I am describing the shape of the criterion, not predicting outcomes for any individual. Anyone whose decision depends on this should read the published text and take professional advice. That sentence is itself part of what I now say in offer conversations.
Hiring engineers into Tokyo this quarter?
We help employers say accurate things about relocation and residence — and put vetted English-speaking engineers in front of them. No promises anyone has to walk back later.
Let’s talkWhat to say instead — and why it converts better
The fear behind vague reassurance is that precision will lose candidates. In our experience it does the opposite, for a simple reason: candidates who are considering moving countries have usually done more reading than the person interviewing them, and they can tell within two sentences whether you know what you are talking about.
| Stop saying | Say instead | Why it works |
|---|---|---|
| “Five years and PR follows” | “PR is a separate process from employment” | Accurate, and removes a future grievance |
| “We’ll help you get it” | The precise list of what you do handle | Demonstrates competence rather than goodwill |
| “It takes about X months” | “Timelines are changing; here is the source” | Positions you as informed, not as a guesser |
| “Current criteria will apply” | “Applicable rules depend on filing date” | The only defensible statement available |
Add one budget line to the offer: independent professional advice, paid by the employer, before the candidate signs. It costs little, it removes the conflict of interest inherent in an employer explaining immigration to someone they are trying to hire, and in three cases this year it is the thing candidates mentioned back to us when accepting.
Expert view #3 — the retention consequence nobody is modelling
The hiring conversation is the visible part. The larger effect is on people already here.
Engineers who relocated to Tokyo three or four years ago made a decision under one set of assumptions. Some of them will read the revised guidelines this month and conclude that the long-term picture is different from what they planned around. That conclusion does not produce an immediate resignation; it produces a quiet reopening of options, which surfaces six to twelve months later as unusually receptive responses to recruiters.
The mitigation is not a benefit or a bonus. It is proactive, accurate information — an internal note that says what changed, what it does and does not affect, and that the company will pay for independent advice for anyone who wants it. Sending that note costs an hour. Not sending it means your engineers learn about it from a forum thread, in the least reassuring possible framing.
This is a distinctively Japanese constraint, and it is worth noting how differently the pressure shows up elsewhere. In Dubai, colleagues at HireDeveloper.ae report that the current squeeze is about which technical functions become load-bearing, not about whether people can stay. In Singapore, the team at HireDeveloper.sg finds scarcity concentrated in hardware-adjacent specialisms. Japan is the market where the binding constraint is supply itself, and residence policy sits directly upstream of supply.
Three things worth doing this week
Read your own recruiting materials for residence claims. Job pages, offer templates, the deck your recruiters use. We found four; I expected one.
Write the precise list of what your company actually handles. Two or three sentences. This is the single highest-value paragraph in a relocation offer and almost nobody has written it down.
Send the internal note. To the engineers already here, before they read it elsewhere. Say what changed, say what it does not affect, and offer to pay for advice.
If you are earlier in the process and still shaping the product a Tokyo team would build, our guides on how to build a fintech app in Japan and how to build a marketplace cover the scoping decisions that determine how many people you need to relocate at all — which is, in the end, the cheapest lever available.
Frequently asked questions
What did Japan’s Immigration Services Agency propose, and when does it take effect?
The agency published draft revisions to the permanent residence guidelines and accepted public comment through 4 September 2026, with implementation planned for 1 October 2026. The draft introduces an income expectation above the average Japanese household income, a pension benchmark equivalent to thirty years of employee pension contributions at the applicant’s income level, and integration criteria covering Japanese language ability, understanding of Japanese laws and social systems, good conduct and financial self-sufficiency without becoming a public burden. For spouses of Japanese nationals or permanent residents, the requirement rises to five years of marriage and three years of residence. On timing, income requirements and public-burden assessments may apply to applications filed as early as April 2026, while the remaining criteria are expected to apply from April 2027.
Does this affect an engineer’s work visa or only permanent residence?
Only permanent residence. Work status for engineers is a separate track and is not changed by this draft, and the distinction matters more than it might appear because the two are routinely conflated in recruiting conversations — almost always in the employer’s favour. An engineer can hold valid work status for a decade without ever meeting permanent residence criteria, and “Japan is open to foreign engineers” has never implied “you can settle here permanently”. What changes is the long-horizon promise: the implicit suggestion that staying with a company for five years leads naturally to permanent residence, which was never guaranteed and is now materially harder to characterise honestly.
What is the pension requirement and why is it the hardest one?
The draft asks applicants to demonstrate expected pension benefits comparable to thirty years of contributions to Japan’s employee pension system at their income level. It is the hardest of the three criteria because, unlike income, it cannot be resolved quickly: it introduces time already elapsed as a variable, and an engineer who arrived in Japan at thirty-two has a bounded number of contribution years available regardless of salary. The uncomfortable implication is that it falls hardest on the population most employers court — experienced mid-career hires with strong earnings and short Japanese contribution histories — while a junior who arrived at twenty-four is structurally better placed. Anyone whose decision depends on this should read the published text and take professional advice rather than rely on a recruiter’s summary.
What should Tokyo employers change in their offers this month?
Stop making four specific promises: that permanent residence follows naturally from tenure, that the company can shorten the path, that timelines quoted from a colleague’s experience two years ago still hold, and that current criteria will be the ones applied when the candidate eventually files. Replace them with what you actually control — salary stated accurately, correct social insurance enrolment, employment certificates issued without delay — written as a precise list rather than a general reassurance. Add one budget line for independent professional advice paid by the employer before signing; it costs little and removes the conflict of interest inherent in an employer explaining immigration to someone they are trying to hire. Candidates consistently respond better to a precise limitation than to a vague reassurance they will test later.
Say the accurate thing, and hire anyway
We work with Tokyo employers on what to put in writing about relocation — and supply the vetted English-speaking engineers to put it in front of.
Let’s talk