2020 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2(2) ISSUES The issues before the Tokyo High Court included the following: 32 1. Should the Minister of Justice’s disposition that did not recognise the plaintiff as a refugee be revoked? 2. Should the disposition of the deportation order issued by the Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau be nullified? 33 3. Should the disposition made by the Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau that did not grant special permission to stay in Japan be nullified? Given the widespread interest in statelessness within the ambit of refugee law and international protection, the following parts of this case note deal with the first and the second issues. HOLDING When the Tokyo High Court considered the above-mentioned issues, it looked at three states in relation to the nationality of the plaintiff: the former Soviet Union, Russia and Georgia. Based on the nationality of the plaintiff’s family members, the Court confirmed that the plaintiff had held the nationality of the former Soviet Union. 34 The Court evaluated the circumstance of the plaintiff during the transitional period. It then accepted that after the cessation of the plaintiff's nationality with the former Soviet Union, he acquired the nationality of neither Russia nor Georgia. 35 Regarding the first issue vis-à-vis the Minister of Justice’s disposition that denied recognition of the plaintiff as a refugee, the Tokyo High Court ruled that the disposition should be revoked. 36 The Court concluded that the plaintiff is a refugee who is a stateless person outside of the state of former habitual residence, Georgia. 37 The Court examined this issue by assessing the plaintiff’s case according to the refugee definition as provided in art 1(A)(2) of the Refugee Convention: … owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is out- side the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. 38 To assess whether the plaintiff was a refugee, the Court considered the relevant aspects of ‘persecution’, ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted’ and the ‘Refugee Convention reason’ for the persecution. Firstly, on ‘persecution’, the defendant 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 ibid 1. ‘Nullify’ is the term used in the standard English translation of the Administrative Case Litigation Act to describe an action seeking the declaration of invalidity of an administrative disposition. See Administrative Case Litigation Act (Act No 139 of 16 May 1962) art 3(4). Tokyo High Court, Heisei 30 232 (n 6) 25–28. ibid. ibid 30. ibid 29–30. Refugee Convention (n 1) art 1(A)(2). 320