【コラム】「技人国」に係る提出資料追加の本質
～言語能力以上に問われる「企業コンプライアンス」と「部門間連携」～

English text follows

Column: What is the real significance of additional documentation requirements for “Engineer/Specialist in Humanities/International Services?”

— Scrutiny of corporate compliance and cross‑departmental coordination as well as language proficiency —

1. Introduction

(1) On 9 April 2026, Japan’s Immigration Services Agency (ISA) announced additional requirements for “Engineer/Specialist in Humanities/International Services” (ESHIS) status of residence applications, filed on or after 15 April 2026, by foreign nationals requiring language skills to perform their role at a Category 3 or Category 4 company. In these cases, applicants will be required to submit written proof of proficiency equivalent to CEFR B2 in the relevant language. Proof of proficiency refers to all languages and is not limited to Japanese.

(2) The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) defines Level B2 as a level “at which an individual can understand the main ideas of complex texts on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in their field of specialization, and can interact with native speakers with sufficient fluency and naturalness to avoid strain for either party.” All future applicants, therefore, will need to present Level B2-equivalent qualifications or experience in order to demonstrate language proficiency for work purposes.

(3) Companies should pay particular attention not only to the introduction of a higher Japanese language threshold but also to intensified ISA scrutiny of compliance with areas linked to this policy shift. Although this development has been described in the media as a “tightening” of ESHIS requirements, the substantive eligibility criteria remain unchanged, with the revision limited to the addition of supporting documentation. These changes reflect instances of improper employment practices. However, given that companies have long assessed the extent of a foreign national’s language proficiency when hiring for language‑dependent roles, it would be difficult to characterize this revision as a fundamental tightening of the system.

(4) In addition, some media reports suggest that authorities are considering whether to introduce a heavyweight linked measure: if a company employing foreign nationals with “Technical Intern Training” or “Specified Skilled Worker” status violates employment regulations and is consequently subject to a temporary ban on further applications, the company will also be prohibited from employing additional foreign nationals with ESHIS status during the same period.

2. Proof of language proficiency

(1) Overview
In Japan, where a foreign national is hired by a Category 3 or Category 4 company and engages in duties that require language skills, such as translation or interpretation, marketing activities targeting the Japanese market, or certain sales roles, the applicant will, in principle, be required to demonstrate language proficiency equivalent to Level B2.

The immigration and residence applications subject to this requirement are shown below:

・Application for a Certificate of Eligibility
・Application for Change of Status of Residence
・Application for Extension of Period of Stay (only if this is the first application following a transfer to a Category 4 company; this is not required for Category 3 companies)

(2) ESHIS requirements are not more strict
The requirement to demonstrate language proficiency for work duties has not been introduced as a statutory condition under the relevant ministerial ordinances or related regulations. Instead, it represents a request for proof of the level of language proficiency deemed necessary to perform these duties at Category 3 or Category 4 companies. As a result, the view that ESHIS has been amended to impose a Japanese language requirement is incorrect.

(3) Japanese language proficiency
Where duties are performed in Japanese, an applicant will be deemed to possess Japanese language proficiency equivalent to CEFR B2 if they fall under any of the following categories. As these examples illustrate, acceptable evidence is not limited to passing a language proficiency examination or achieving a specific test score.

・Holding Japanese-Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) Level N2 or higher
・Achieving a score of 400 points or above on the BJT Business Japanese Proficiency Test
・Living in Japan for 20 years or more as a mid- to long-term resident
・Graduating from a Japanese university, or completing a specialized or advanced course at a Japanese technical college or vocational school
・Completing compulsory education in Japan and graduating from a Japanese high school

(4) Other language proficiency
Under this revision, the term “language proficiency” is not restricted to any specific language. As an example, where a foreign national (e.g., a German citizen) working in Japan uses English to perform their role but is not a native speaker of the language, ISA may require evidence demonstrating English language proficiency equivalent to Level B2.

３．Next steps for companies

(1) Measures applicable to all companies
All companies should assess whether the roles of existing or future foreign national employees are likely to be classified as including duties requiring language skills. Where Japanese language proficiency is required for the performance of these duties, companies should prepare for the possibility that evidence of Japanese language proficiency, such as JLPT N2, may need to be submitted at the time of application. From a practical perspective, companies are advised to consider developing a roadmap for existing or future employees to acquire relevant qualifications and a process to collate all relevant documentation.

(2) Category 1 or Category 2 Companies
Companies classified as Category 1 or Category 2 are not, as a general rule, required to submit documentation provided by the applicant which demonstrates language proficiency. Language proficiency is neither an ESHIS landing permission criterion nor an ESHIS requirement. Nevertheless, there remains a real possibility that ISA may request this documentation in the course of additional information requests. If so, companies should submit evidence demonstrating an applicant’s Level B2-equivalent proficiency.

Where no such evidence is available, companies should avoid ad hoc explanations, such as asserting that there are no duties requiring these language skills. Instead, they should consider submitting a detailed written explanation of the actual job duties and how the necessary language competence is ensured in practice.

(3) Category 3 or Category 4 companies
Category 3 or Category 4 companies are counselled to avoid ill-advised, stopgap responses, such as changing the job description to “position does not require Japanese language proficiency” solely because the applicant has not passed the JLPT N2 exam or cannot produce documentary proof of language proficiency.

In applications for extensions or changes of status of residence, ISA has access to detailed historical records and information on actual employment practices. As a result, superficial adjustments of this nature are unlikely to withstand scrutiny. Where job duties are changed from roles requiring Japanese to roles that purportedly do not, companies will be expected to provide a persuasive, evidence-based explanation, addressing issues such as why Japanese language ability was previously necessary and how applicants performed specialized duties with a lower level of proficiency.

In addition, even at an early stage when employers apply for a Certificate of Eligibility, listing duties that do not involve language-based work to obtain approval, and subsequently assigning such duties in practice, may give rise to suspicions of misrepresentation. Amending a job description merely to conform to revised guidelines may ultimately work to a company’s disadvantage in subsequent immigration examinations.

4. Linkage between “Technical Intern Training,” “Specified Skilled Worker,” and ESHIS: When lack of company-wide governance becomes a critical risk

While the introduction of mandatory language proficiency documentation has drawn attention, the most significant practical impact of this revision is that misconduct relating to Technical Intern Training or Specified Skilled Worker programs may now directly affect a company’s ability to employ foreign nationals with ESHIS status.

In practice, where a company is barred for five years from employing technical interns or specified skilled workers due to misconduct such as abuse or unpaid wages, there will be expectation of a ban on employment of ESHIS workers for the duration of that suspension. The upcoming Employment for Skill Development program is thought to be subject to similar treatment from April 2027.

At present, many companies have a fragmented approach to how they manage employment of foreign employees. In actuality, responsibilities are often divided as follows:
 

Operational sites (e.g., factories and retail locations): managed by site supervisors or HR business partners responsible for Technical Intern Training and Specified Skilled Worker programs

Head office: managed by headquarters HR or business unit HR business partners responsible for ESHIS hires, including assignees and professional recruits

If labor issues arise at operational sites without the knowledge of headquarters or business divisions, and this results in a five-year suspension, the company may suddenly find itself unable to recruit or renew the employment of highly skilled foreign professionals essential to its core business, posing a potentially grave risk to its overall management strategy.

5. Three actions to maintain employment of foreign nationals

The addition of documentary requirements should not be viewed merely as increasing the number of applications which require Japanese language testing. Companies are encouraged to consider the following practical measures at an early stage:

(1) Conduct cross-departmental compliance audits
Mistakes can no longer be dismissed as “site‑level issues.” Corporate HR must take the lead in establishing an internal audit framework for regular review of how Specified Skilled Worker and Technical Intern Training programs are managed at operational sites.

Sharing labor‑law compliance risks across the entire organization is essential in safeguarding access to highly skilled foreign professionals.

(2) Budget Japanese language training as a management investment
Companies should adopt structured hiring and workforce management plans for roles requiring Japanese, such as encouraging candidates to take language examinations prior to their start date at the company and incorporating certification as a condition of employment.

Japanese language training should be budgeted as a necessary cost for legal compliance and risk management rather than assuming action by individual employees to acquire the necessary language skills.

(3) Collate and organize data on changes to roles and responsibilities
To avoid ill-advised and ad hoc compliance responses, companies should document the relationship between a job description and the language skills required for the role.

Companies able to present clear, logical background data explaining why a particular level of language proficiency is required will have the strongest possible defense in future immigration reviews.

6. Conclusion

Companies which aim, over the long-term, to leverage the employment of talented foreign professionals in an increasingly competitive global environment must achieve three objectives: gain an accurate understanding of the risks inherent in managing a workforce comprised of foreign nationals; conduct rigorous assessments of job roles and responsibilities; and establish a transparent and robust operational framework. 

お問い合わせ先