Can Japan Take Away Your Permanent Residency? The 2027 Revocation Rules, Read Line by Line

If you have seen a forwarded message this month saying Japan can now deport permanent residents over an unpaid tax bill, here is the short version: that is not what the document says.

On 4 August 2026 Japan's Immigration Services Agency published two draft guidelines and opened both for public comment. One covered how permanent residency is granted — we read that one when it landed. The second, quieter one covers how permanent residency can be taken away, and it is the one almost nobody has read. Its comment window closes on 3 September 2026.

We read all of it. What it describes is not a deportation power. It is a demotion power — and the document spends most of its length explaining the situations in which it is not meant to bite. This article walks through what the three grounds actually are, what happens to your family, who can report you, what the state has explicitly refused to put a number on, and what any of it means if you are Indian and either hold Japanese permanent residency or are working toward it.

🛡️ Key takeaway

From 1 April 2027, Japan gains three new grounds for cancelling the Permanent Resident status: wilful non-payment of taxes and public insurance premiums, breach of certain Immigration Act duties, and imprisonment for a listed serious crime. But the default consequence written into the law is not removal from Japan — it is an ex-officio change to another status, which the draft guideline says will usually be Long-Term Resident (定住者). The ISA's own Q&A confirms you can then apply for permanent residency again. The word to hold onto is wilful: the guideline lists illness, disaster, unemployment, an instalment plan, and even "your employer deducted it and never paid it over" as situations that do not qualify.

---

1. What actually changed, and when

The change comes from Act No. 60 of 2024, passed on 14 June 2024 and promulgated on 21 June 2024. The Immigration Services Agency's own page on that legislation states its commencement date: 1 April 2027, other than for certain provisions (ISA, 令和６年入管法等改正について). This is the same statute that creates the Ikusei Shuro training-and-employment system — the two reforms travelled together.

The Act added two new sub-paragraphs to Article 22-4(1) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act:

• Item 8 — failing to comply with duties prescribed by the Immigration Act, or wilfully failing to pay public dues (公租公課).
• Item 9 — being sentenced to imprisonment for one of a listed set of criminal offences.

Before this, as the ISA's Q&A sets out, a permanent resident's status could be cancelled only in a narrow set of cases: failing to notify a change of address, notifying a false address, or having obtained the permission by fraud (ISA, 永住許可制度の適正化Q&A, Q3).

What was published on 4 August is not the law. It is the draft guideline explaining how the ISA intends to interpret and apply it. The document gives its own purpose as securing predictability for foreign nationals, fairness in the ISA's decisions, and appropriate reporting by national and local officials — and adds that both houses of the Diet attached a supplementary resolution requiring that a guideline be drawn up, that the interests of already-settled permanent residents not be unduly harmed, and that the system be operated with particular caution.

That origin story is worth noticing. The Diet asked for this document at the same moment it passed the power the document constrains.

Two things it does not touch. Special Permanent Residents (特別永住者) are outside the reform entirely — they hold their status under a separate statute. And nothing here changes Japan's deportation rules, which we come back to in Part 6, because they are harsher than the new regime and always were.

---

2. The reframe: this is a demotion regime, not a deportation regime

Here is the sentence that the panicked forwards leave out.

Article 22-6 of the amended Act provides that even where a person falls within one of the new grounds, the Minister of Justice shall grant, ex officio, a change to a status of residence other than Permanent Resident — unless it is found that the person's continued residence in Japan is not appropriate. The draft guideline then says, in its own words, that in most cases the change envisaged is to the Long-Term Resident (定住者) status (draft guideline, Part 4).

Long-Term Resident is not a punishment status. It carries no work restriction — you can do any job, exactly as you could on permanent residency. What you lose is the open-ended term: instead of never being reviewed again, you go back to renewing your period of stay, and the ISA says it will use those renewals to check that the underlying problem has been fixed.

Be clear-eyed about the rest of what you lose, though, because it is the part the legal summaries skip. Permanent residency is what Japanese banks treat as the marker of settledness. Dropping to Long-Term Resident can affect your standing for a home loan, an education loan, or credit generally — not as a matter of immigration law, but as a matter of how lenders assess you. If your family is mid-way through buying a flat, that is the consequence you would feel first, and it is a real one.

And then the guideline adds this: if you subsequently meet the requirements for permanent residency again, you can be granted it again. The ISA repeats the point in its public Q&A: because the reform does not change the application procedure, someone moved to Long-Term Resident "can receive permanent residence permission again" once proper performance of public obligations can be confirmed (Q&A, Q13).

So the honest description of the 2027 regime is: Japan is adding a way to move a permanent resident down a rung, with a way back up. Actual cancellation is reserved for the cases where the ISA concludes the person should not be in Japan at all.

That is a real change and it deserves to be taken seriously. It is not what most of the internet is telling you it is.

---

3. The three grounds, in plain English

Read the right-hand column again. Every ground has a gate, and the guideline spends far more words on the gates than on the grounds.

---

4. The money ground: what "wilful" actually means

This is the ground everyone is worried about, so it gets the most space here.

First, what counts as a "public due"

The draft defines 公租 as taxes generally and 公課 as compulsory public levies other than taxes. Its own examples: income tax, resident tax, corporate tax, fixed-asset tax; and on the levy side, public medical insurance premiums (National Health Insurance and employees' health insurance) and public pension contributions (National Pension and Employees' Pension) — the same contributions that later generate your lump-sum withdrawal or pension entitlement.

Now the part almost nobody has reported. The guideline expressly says 公租公課 means things "compulsorily collected for broadly public purposes", and that fees, usage charges, and fines or administrative penalties imposed as a sanction are not included. It gives two examples by name: the usage fee for the Mount Fuji ascent and descent trails, and fines and penalty charges for traffic violations.

So: a speeding fine is not a public due. A parking penalty is not a public due. Neither of them engages this ground at all. If you have read otherwise, you have read something invented.

Second, the three-question test

Here is the structure of the ground, reduced to the three questions the ISA is actually asking. We have set it out this way because the source document buries it across four subsections.

Question 1 — Is the money a 公租公課 at all? Taxes and public insurance/pension premiums: yes. Fees, usage charges, fines: no. If no, this ground stops here.

Question 2 — Was the non-payment wilful (故意)? The draft defines this as: knowing that a payment obligation exists and deliberately not paying anyway. It then explains why the word is there — to confine the ground to cases where the non-payment can be called malicious, not merely to cases where money is owed. The test it applies is whether, weighing income and assets, the number of arrears, the amount, the duration, the payment history, how the arrears arose, the person's conduct and everything else together, it is clear that there is no intention to pay.

Question 3 — Is there an unavoidable circumstance with no fault on your part? If yes, the ground does not apply, even if money is genuinely owed.

Third, the safe-harbour list — transcribed from the document

The draft sets out, side by side, the cases it expects to qualify and the cases it expects not to. This table is the single most useful thing in the guideline and we have not seen it summarised in English.

Look at the bottom-right cell. If your employer deducted your tax and insurance from your pay and then never remitted it, the draft guideline names that as a case it expects not to qualify. It is written down, by the state, about the exact worker who has been failed by an exploitative employer — the sort of entry that only appears if somebody in the drafting room raised the scenario.

It is a statement of expected practice rather than a guarantee, so read it as a strong indication and not a shield. It is also worth keeping your own copy of your payslips, because relying on it at all depends on being able to show the deduction happened.

Fourth: there is no magic number, and the state says so

Every "if you owe more than ¥X your PR is gone" post you have seen is inventing a figure.

The draft addresses this head-on. It says the amount of arrears or unreported liability, the period, and the number of occasions are all considered — and then states that the assessment weighs the specific circumstances of each case in the round and does not apply a uniform standard to arrears figures.

The ISA is deliberately not publishing a threshold. Anyone who tells you the threshold is inventing it.

Fifth, the retroactivity question, handled carefully

This is the part that genuinely deserves concern, and it is in a footnote.

The draft says that where a person wilfully failed to pay public dues after being granted permanent residency but before the amended Act commences, and this comes to light afterwards, it can fall within Item 8 — on the reasoning that the quality of their residence record was no better before commencement than after. It immediately qualifies this: a single point in time before commencement will not by itself lead to cancellation, and the assessment will include subsequent payment behaviour.

Alongside it sits a statutory safeguard the Diet inserted. Article 25 of the supplementary provisions of the amending Act requires that, in applying Item 8, full regard be had to the person's previous payment record, their current living circumstances, and the situation they are in — a provision the ISA cites when answering the question "I have been here for decades and have nowhere to go back to" (Q&A, Q17).

The practical reading, and we would put it no more strongly than this: an old arrears problem that you have since fixed is in a materially different position from one you are still ignoring. If you have something outstanding, the window between now and April 2027 is the useful one.

---

5. The residence-card ground: small duties, real consequences

The first limb of Item 8 is the one nobody expects, because the duties involved are so mundane.

The draft identifies the duties in scope as those whose breach is backed by a penalty under the Act, which are not already deportation grounds, and which are not the address-notification grounds that could already cancel a permanent resident's status before any of this. Within that boundary it names them:

• applying to renew your residence card before it expires, and applying for re-issue if it is lost (Articles 19-11, 19-12);
• carrying your residence card and producing it when asked (Article 23);
• not forging or altering a residence card, and not using, supplying or receiving a forged card or one in someone else's name (Articles 73-3, 73-6) — for these two, since the completed act is already a deportation ground, it is the attempt that falls into the revocation ground;
• not harbouring an illegal entrant to help them evade the authorities (Article 74-8) — again, the attempt.

The guideline notes that negligence is enough to engage the ground. But it then says, in a note attached directly to the card duties, that where someone forgot to renew the card or carelessly failed to carry it, cancelling the status on the basis of that one failure is not contemplated. The ISA repeats this in its public Q&A: an absent-minded failure to carry the card or to apply for renewal is not envisaged as leading to cancellation (Q&A, Q8).

Where the guideline draws the line is at persistence: someone who, after repeated guidance, still does not carry or renew the card and whose conduct shows no intention to comply. And it treats attempted forgery or misuse of a card as a case where continued residence is not appropriate — i.e. actual cancellation.

One practical note, and a narrow one. A separate 2024 amending Act (Act No. 59) introduced the 特定在留カード, a residence card integrated with the My Number card, and it commenced on 14 June 2026 (ISA). This is an optional card you may apply for; existing residence cards remain valid and your carrying and renewal duties are unchanged. Mentioned only so that you do not read a news headline about "new residence card rules" and assume your own obligations moved.

---

6. The crime ground — and the older rule that is harsher

Item 9 is a closed list. The draft reproduces it in full, and every offence on it is an intentional one:

• Penal Code: trespass; currency forgery; forgery of documents, securities, payment-card electromagnetic records and seals; gambling and lotteries; murder; injury; unlawful capture and confinement; kidnapping, abduction and trafficking in persons; theft and robbery; fraud and extortion; offences relating to stolen goods.
• Act on Punishment of Physical Violence and Others: collective assault, intimidation and property damage; habitual injury and assault.
• Act on Prevention of Theft: habitual special theft, habitual repeat theft, habitual special robbery causing injury.
• Act on Prohibition of Possession of Special Picking Tools: unlawful sale, transfer, possession and carrying.
• Act on Punishment of Acts Causing Death or Injury by Driving a Vehicle: dangerous driving causing death or injury.
• Act on Prevention of Disposal of Stolen Specified Metal Articles: concealed carrying of designated metal-cutting tools.

Two features matter. Suspended sentences count — the draft says the sentence length is irrelevant and a suspended custodial sentence is included. And the guideline states that even a first offence with a suspended sentence is expected to result in an ex-officio change of status, because the residence record cannot be called good.

What is not on the list is just as important, and the ISA answers it directly in Q11:

Now the counterweight, and it is the most important paragraph in this article.

The existing deportation rules did not change, and they are stricter than the new revocation regime. A permanent resident sentenced to more than one year's actual imprisonment may be deported regardless of the offence — it does not have to be on the Item 9 list. So may a permanent resident convicted of a drug offence (Q&A, Q3 and Q11).

So the 2027 reform is genuinely not the thing that puts serious crime and removal from Japan into the same sentence. That link has existed for decades. What the reform adds sits below it: a milder response, aimed at conduct that was previously not addressed at all.

---

7. Who can report you — and what actually triggers it

This is the machinery, and it is the least-explained part of the reform.

The amended Act adds Article 62-2: where a national or local government employee, in the course of performing their duties, becomes aware of a foreign national they consider to fall within a status-cancellation ground, they may report it to the ISA.

The draft guideline explains precisely what that article does, and the explanation is worth quoting in substance: the provision "constitutes the statutory basis for releasing the person making the report from their duty of confidentiality." Reporting is not an obligation. The official decides, voluntarily, applying the guideline's own reasoning, and supplies information within a necessary and possible scope. A written report is preferred over an oral one absent urgency.

And here is the reach nobody has flagged. The guideline notes that although Items 8 and 9 apply only to permanent residents, Article 62-2 permits reports about any of the cancellation grounds in Article 22-4(1) — so reports can also be made about people holding other statuses on the other, pre-existing grounds. If you are one of the 14,567 Indians on the Engineer/Specialist visa or the 13,367 on a Dependent visa, this part of the reform reaches you too, even though the new grounds do not.

Now the reassurance, and it comes from the ISA itself. Asked directly whether going to your municipal office to discuss paying resident tax could get you reported, the agency answers: receiving a report is not envisaged where someone has simply gone to consult the relevant body about paying their public dues. It adds that people struggling with payment should consult the relevant administrative bodies, and that anyone worried about their own status can consult the Foreign Residents Support Centre (FRESC) (Q&A, Q16).

Put the two halves together and you get the rule that runs against most people's instincts:

Silence is the risk factor. Engagement with the ward office is what the ISA's own examples treat as the opposite of wilful.

Every case on the "expected to qualify" side of the table in Part 4 involves someone who disappeared, ignored, or refused. Every case on the other side involves someone who turned up and said "I cannot pay this month — what are my options?" None of that is a guarantee about how any individual case will be decided. It is simply the pattern the state has chosen to write down.

Finally, the process. A report is only a starting point. Where the Minister proposes to cancel a status, immigration inspectors or control officers conduct a factual investigation and an inspector holds a hearing at which the person, or their representative, may state their case and submit evidence. If you disagree with the outcome, you may bring revocation proceedings in court (Q&A, Q15).

---

8. What happens to your family

This is the first question every family asks, and the answer is unusually precise. It is in Q14 of the ISA's Q&A, and we have not seen it reported in English.

The rule: only the person who falls within a cancellation ground is assessed. Nobody is caught merely for being their family member — although, as the last row below shows, one status has to be swapped as a consequence of the sponsor's change rather than as a judgment on the spouse.

That last row is the one to plan around, and it applies to a lot of Indian households — families are the defining feature of the Indian community in Japan, with Dependent the second-largest status Indians hold. Note that a spouse moved onto Long-Term Resident keeps unrestricted work rights, so the practical impact on household income is limited; what changes is that they, too, go back onto a renewal cycle.

The draft also says that even where cancellation would otherwise be warranted, family circumstances and humanitarian considerations can result in an ex-officio change instead. And it closes with a statement of intent: the system will be operated with full regard to the degree to which permanent residents and their families have put down roots in Japan.

---

9. Confirmed vs rumour

---

10. What this actually means if you are Indian

Now the part that changes how you should read all of the above.

At the end of 2025, 947,125 people in Japan held permanent residency — the single largest residence status in the country, ahead of Engineer/Specialist and Student (ISA, end-2025 residence statistics). Against a total foreign-resident population of 4,125,395, that is 23.0%: close to one in four foreign residents in Japan is a permanent resident.

Indians are well below that line. Of the 58,999 Indians in Japan at the same date, 10,084 hold permanent residency — 17.1% (ISA Table 2; share computed by Komichi). The reason is structural rather than anything else: the Indian community in Japan is young. Most of it arrived in the last decade and has not yet cleared the residence-year requirements, which is exactly what you would expect of a population led by skilled employment rather than by settlement.

So the honest framing for our readers is this. For most Indians in Japan, the 2027 revocation rules are not a present threat. They are a future condition of the thing you are working toward. Of the 14,567 Indians on the Engineer/Specialist visa, many will apply for permanent residency over the coming decade — and they will be granted it under one set of rules and will hold it under another, one where the status is no longer a door that shuts behind you.

That is worth planning for, and it changes one specific calculation. If you are weighing the three-year plan against the forever plan, working through the SSW route to permanent residency, or counting on the Highly Skilled Professional fast track, permanent residency is now better modelled as a status with ongoing conditions than as a finish line. Practically, that means one habit: keep your tax and social-insurance record clean and documented, permanently, and not only in the two years before you apply — which is the practical extension of everything in our guide to salaries, tax and what you actually keep. One pattern the ISA points to when explaining why it wanted the power is that some people clear their arrears in a lump before applying and stop paying once the permission is granted (Q&A, Q4). That specific pattern is what the new regime is built to catch.

There is also a reading of this that is more positive than the mood around it. Before the reform, a permanent resident with a serious problem faced two options: nothing at all, or the deportation machinery. The new regime inserts a proportionate middle step with a documented route back — and the ISA has confirmed that falling within a ground does not automatically mean cancellation (Q&A, Q12). The Diet also required the ISA to publish its reasoning, name its examples, and write down the circumstances in which it will not act. That is more predictability than permanent residents had a month ago, not less.

And it should be said plainly that the ISA rejects the framing that this tightens anything. Its position is that the reform does not add new requirements for permanent residence permission and does not make the requirements stricter — it makes explicit in statute what the guideline already said about performing public obligations (Q&A, Q7). Critics disagree, and they are not fringe: bar associations published opposition well before this consultation opened, and migrant-support organisations have filed comments to it, arguing that the effect on real people will be broader than the stated intent and that the pre-commencement reach-back described above should be removed. Both positions are on the public record. We would rather you read the document and reach your own view than take ours.

---

11. What to do this week

If you hold permanent residency:

1. Check for anything outstanding. Resident tax, National Health Insurance, National Pension. If something is unpaid, the useful action is not to panic — it is to go to the counter and ask about an instalment or deferral arrangement, because being on one is expressly on the "does not qualify" side of the ISA's own table.
2. Keep your payslips. The employer-deducted-but-never-remitted protection only helps you if you can show the deduction.
3. Fix the boring things. Residence card expiry date in your calendar. Address notified to your municipality within 14 days of every move — remember that failing to notify a change of address was already a cancellation ground before any of this, and the existing ground bites well before the 2027 rules ever would.
4. If you are worried about your own case, the ISA's own suggested route is FRESC, the Foreign Residents Support Centre, on 0570-011000. For anything specific to your circumstances, a lawyer (弁護士) or an administrative scrivener (行政書士) is the right call — this article is general information, not advice on your case.

If you are working toward permanent residency:

Run your own position through our Japan PR rules checker, which reflects the draft acquisition rules published on the same day. Then read what those draft rules say — the income, pension and language elements sit there, not here. If you want to see where your salary actually lands against the household-income element, the salary calculator and tax calculator will get you a realistic number, and the pension calculator covers the contribution side that Part 4 of this article turns on.

If you want to comment on the draft — the deadline is 3 September 2026.

The consultation (e-Gov case 315000141) opened on 4 August 2026 and closes on 3 September 2026, submissions to arrive by that date. There are three routes: the e-Gov comment form, email to the ISA's Residence Planning Office, or post to 〒100-8973 Tokyo, Chiyoda-ku, Kasumigaseki 1-1-1. Comments must give reasons, and individuals must include their name and contact details (意見募集要領).

One honest caveat: submissions are accepted in Japanese only. For a consultation about the conditions attached to foreign residents' status, that is a real barrier, and it is worth knowing before you sit down to write. If your Japanese is not there yet, our guide to the Japanese level each visa actually needs is a reasonable place to start on the longer project.

Whatever you conclude, read the source. It is short, it is free, and the version circulating on WhatsApp is not it.

---

Frequently asked questions

Can Japan deport me for unpaid taxes from 2027? Not under this reform. The new ground is wilful non-payment of taxes and public insurance premiums, and the consequence written into the statute is a change of status — usually to Long-Term Resident — unless the ISA concludes your continued residence in Japan is not appropriate. Deportation for tax arrears alone is not what the document describes.

What is 定住者 (Long-Term Resident), and is it bad? It is a residence status with no restriction on the work you can do — the same freedom permanent residency gives you. The difference is that it has a fixed period of stay and must be renewed. The draft guideline says the ISA will use those renewals to check whether the underlying issue has been resolved.

Can I get permanent residency back afterwards? The ISA says yes. Because the reform does not change the application procedure, someone whose status was changed can apply again once proper performance of public obligations can be confirmed. It is a fresh application, not an automatic restoration.

Does missing one National Pension payment put my PR at risk? The test is wilfulness — knowing the obligation exists and deliberately not paying, assessed against your income, assets, the number and length of arrears, your payment history and your conduct. A missed payment you then engage with is on the opposite side of the ISA's own examples from an ignored one. There is no published threshold amount.

I could not pay because I lost my job. Am I in trouble? Illness, disaster and unemployment are all listed in the draft as circumstances expected not to qualify — with business downturn, income shocks from disaster or epidemic, hardship from domestic violence, and job loss caused by workplace harassment given as examples. The practical step is to tell the municipal office and get onto an instalment or deferral arrangement rather than letting it run.

My company deducted tax and insurance from my salary but never paid it. Is that my problem? The draft names this as a case expected not to qualify as wilful non-payment. Keep your payslips, because the protection depends on your being able to evidence the deduction. If this is happening to you, it is also a serious employment problem in its own right.

Will a traffic fine or a car accident affect my permanent residency? Fines and penalty charges are expressly outside the definition of public dues. Ordinary negligent driving causing death or injury is not on the criminal list, because that list covers intentional offences only, and Road Traffic Act violations are not on it either. Dangerous driving causing death or injury is on the list.

Does a suspended sentence count? Yes. The draft states that the length of the sentence is irrelevant and that suspended custodial sentences are included, and that even a first offence is expected to result in an ex-officio change of status.

Will my ward office report me if I go in to discuss unpaid tax? The ISA's published answer is that receiving a report is not envisaged where someone has simply gone to consult about paying their public dues. Reporting is discretionary, not mandatory, and the examples in the draft that do lead to reports involve repeated demands and enforcement met with no engagement.

What happens to my spouse and children? Only the person who falls within a ground is affected. Children on Permanent Resident or Spouse-or-Child-of-Permanent-Resident status are unaffected, as is a spouse holding Permanent Resident in their own right. A spouse on Spouse-or-Child-of-Permanent-Resident status would need to change to another status, such as Long-Term Resident.

Does this apply to Special Permanent Residents? No. Special Permanent Residents hold their status under a separate statute and the ISA states expressly that they are outside this reform.

When does it start? 1 April 2027, under Act No. 60 of 2024. The guideline discussed here is still a draft — its own date line is left blank — and could change before it is finalised.

---

This article is general information, not legal, immigration, tax, financial, or medical advice. Rules, fees, and figures change and vary by individual circumstances — verify the latest details with official sources (e.g. the Immigration Services Agency of Japan and the relevant embassy or test body) and consult a qualified professional before making decisions.

All descriptions of the revocation guideline in this article are descriptions of a draft published for public comment on 4 August 2026. The final text may differ. Quotations from Japanese-language sources are our own summaries and translations.

---

Sources

• Immigration Services Agency, 永住者の在留資格の取消しに関するガイドライン（案） — full draft text, published 4 August 2026. e-Gov case 315000141, document · summary sheet. Accessed 31 August 2026.
• Immigration Services Agency, 意見募集要領 for the same consultation — comment period 4 August to 3 September 2026, submission methods, Japanese-only requirement. PDF. Accessed 31 August 2026.
• e-Gov Public Comment, case record 315000141 — publication date 4 August 2026, closing 4 September 2026 00:00 (i.e. arrival by 3 September). Case page. Accessed 31 August 2026.
• Immigration Services Agency, 永住許可制度の適正化Q&A — Q3, Q4, Q7, Q8, Q11, Q12, Q13, Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17. Q&A page. Accessed 31 August 2026.
• Immigration Services Agency, 令和６年入管法等改正について — Act No. 60 of 2024, promulgated 21 June 2024, commencing 1 April 2027 other than certain provisions; Act No. 59 commencing 14 June 2026. ISA page. Accessed 31 August 2026.
• Immigration Services Agency, 永住許可制度の適正化について — official overview diagram of the three outcomes. PDF. Accessed 31 August 2026.
• Immigration Services Agency, 令和７年末現在における在留外国人数について — 4,125,395 total foreign residents; 947,125 Permanent Residents; nationality and status tables. Press release · data tables (PDF). Accessed 31 August 2026.
• Immigration Services Agency, 「永住者」の適正化に係るパブリック・コメントの実施について — the two parallel consultations. ISA page. Accessed 31 August 2026.

Indian figures (10,084 permanent residents; 17.1% share; 14,567 Engineer/Specialist; 13,367 Dependent) are from ISA Table 2 of the end-2025 release; percentage shares computed by Komichi.