Case of Appeal Seeking Injunction Against Revocation of Japanese Language Institution Designation

In May 2025, the Immigration Services Agency of Japan revoked the accreditation of Sejong Japanese Language Academy, a Tokyo-based institution with a predominantly South Korean student body, after audits revealed systematic negligence in attendance monitoring. Over 70 Korean students had overstayed their visas or engaged in illegal employment, facilitated by the academy’s failure to report absences. The academy filed for an administrative stay and sought an injunction against the revocation at the Tokyo District Court, arguing that the penalty was excessively harsh and that corrective measures had been implemented. The district court rejected the claim in January 2026, finding no abuse of discretion. The academy appealed to the Tokyo High Court, contending that the revocation order violated the principle of proportionality and that the agency had relied on unverified audit data. The case drew intense diplomatic attention, with South Korean consular officials expressing concern over the treatment of Korean educational ventures in Japan.

On April 15, 2026, the Tokyo High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the revocation. The court ruled that the agency’s decision fell within its broad discretion to enforce immigration control, given the serious and repeated management failures that jeopardized the integrity of the student residence system. The injunction was denied as the public interest in strict oversight outweighed the academy’s commercial harm.

Whether the revocation of designation constituted an abuse of discretionary power or a violation of the proportionality principle; whether the Immigration Services Agency’s audit procedures were procedurally fair and factually substantiated; and whether the court should grant an injunction to preserve the institution’s operational status pending final judgment.

The ruling sent a strong signal to all Japanese language schools with large foreign student populations, triggering a wave of compliance reviews. Korean educational investors and media criticized the decision as disproportionately punitive, temporarily chilling bilateral exchanges in the private language education sector. Domestically, the case accelerated legislative debate on introducing a more graduated sanctions framework for immigration-related institutional violations.