How to Fix Inconsistencies Between Previous and Current Immigration Applications#

When applying for a change of status, extension of period of stay, or permanent residency with the Immigration Services Agency of Japan (ISA), applicants may face a critical situation where the examiner points out a “contradiction” or “inconsistency” between the current application and previous filings. Alternatively, applicants may realize this discrepancy themselves before or during the application process.

In the Japanese immigration system, consistency and credibility are paramount. A discrepancy is not merely a clerical error; it is often viewed as a potential indicator of fraud or misrepresentation. This article provides an objective and detailed guide on why these contradictions occur, their impact on the screening process, and the specific steps required to correct them legitimately.

The Severity of “Contradictions” in Immigration Screening#

It is crucial to understand that the Immigration Bureau maintains a permanent database of all documents submitted by foreign nationals. The screening process for a new application does not exist in a vacuum. Officials compare the current forms against every document submitted in the past—ranging from the very first Certificate of Eligibility (COE) application to every subsequent renewal.

When a discrepancy is found, the examiner typically suspects one of two scenarios:

1. Simple Clerical Error: A typo or a genuine mistake due to memory lapse.
2. Material Misrepresentation (False Declaration): The applicant is lying now, or lied in the past to gain an immigration advantage.

The second scenario is extremely serious. Under the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, submitting false documents can lead to the denial of the visa, revocation of existing status, or even deportation. Even without malicious intent, a lack of consistency damages the applicant’s “credibility,” which is the foundation of any discretionary approval by the Minister of Justice.

Common Types of Discrepancies#

To understand how to fix the issue, one must first categorize the type of inconsistency.

Educational and Employment History#

A common issue arises when dates of graduation or names of employers differ from previous filings. For example, if an applicant claimed to have a university degree in an initial application to meet visa requirements but lists only a high school diploma in a Permanent Residency application, this raises immediate suspicion of past fraud.

Entry and Exit History / Criminal Record#

Failing to declare a past arrest, deportation, or overstay period that was previously recorded (or omitted) creates a direct conflict with official records.

Family Status and Cohabitants#

Discrepancies regarding marital status, the number of children, or people living together can trigger suspicions of sham marriages or illegal employment facilitation.

Step-by-Step Guide to Correction and Explanation#

If a contradiction is pointed out or discovered, ignoring it is not an option. It usually leads to a denial. The following steps must be taken to address the issue with integrity.

1. Verification of Past Records#

One cannot correct a mistake without knowing exactly what was submitted previously. If the applicant does not have copies of their old application forms, relying on memory is dangerous. In such cases, it is highly recommended to file a “Request for Disclosure of Personal Information” (Hoyu Kojin Joho Kaiji Seikyu) with the ISA. This allows the applicant to legally obtain copies of their past submissions and verify exactly where the inconsistency lies.

2. Drafting the “Statement of Reasons” (Riyusho)#

Simply re-submitting a corrected form is insufficient. A supplemental document explaining why the discrepancy occurred is mandatory. This is often called a “Letter of Explanation” or “Statement of Reasons.”

Case A: Genuine Mistakes#

If the inconsistency was due to a simple error (e.g., writing the wrong year of graduation by mistake), the applicant should state this honestly. Example: “Due to a lack of confirmation, I incorrectly wrote the year 2015 instead of 2016. I apologize for the confusion. The correct date is…” Supporting evidence, such as the original diploma, must be attached to prove the truth.

Case B: Past Misrepresentation#

This is the most difficult scenario. If the applicant intentionally provided false information in the past (e.g., to hide a gap in employment or to meet a degree requirement), attempting to cover it up with another lie is the worst possible strategy. The Immigration Bureau likely already knows the truth or has strong doubts.

The only potential remedy is a full confession and apology. The applicant must submit a “Letter of Apology” (Hanseibun/Shimatsusho).

• Admit the fault: “In my previous application, I stated X because I was afraid my visa would be denied. This was untrue.”
• Express remorse: “I deeply regret this dishonest act.”
• Provide the truth: “The actual facts are Y, as shown in the attached documents.”
• Pledge for the future: “I promise to report only the truth in all future dealings with the Immigration Bureau.”

While this does not guarantee approval, continuing to lie guarantees denial and potential blacklisting. Honesty is the only path to potentially regaining trust.

3. Submission of Objective Proof#

Explanations alone are weak. They must be backed by objective documents. If the discrepancy is about employment history, submitting tax records (Withholding Slips), certificates of employment, or separation notices that match the corrected timeline is essential to establish the facts.

Key Considerations When Writing Explanations#

When drafting these explanatory documents, the tone and content are critical:

• Avoid Emotional Pleas: Focus on facts. Explain the “who, what, where, when, and why” logically.
• “I didn’t know” is not a Valid Excuse: Applicants often claim that a broker, friend, or employer filled out the previous forms and they didn’t know the content. Immigration authorities generally do not accept this. By signing the application, the applicant accepts full responsibility for its content. It is better to admit to “negligence in checking the document” rather than blaming others.
• Internal Consistency: Ensure that the new explanation aligns perfectly with the current evidence and creates a coherent timeline from the past to the present.

Conclusion#

An inconsistency between a previous and current application acts as a “red flag” in the Japanese immigration system. It halts the screening process and invites scrutiny. However, mistakes are human, and the system does allow for corrections if handled properly.

The golden rule in resolving these issues is integrity. Attempting to manipulate facts to make them fit usually backfires because the Immigration Services Agency has extensive records. Instead, applicants should objectively verify their past data, provide a sincere and logical explanation for the discrepancy, and support the correction with solid evidence. This honest approach is the only way to rebuild credibility and maximize the chances of a successful application.