Language, Experience, Business Plan, and Office Requirements

Post-reform, applicants need Japanese language ability of at least CEFR B2 (roughly equivalent to JLPT N2). A point still debated in chat even after the rules took effect is whether this requirement applies to the applicant personally or can instead be satisfied by a full-time staff member of the company. What is confirmed is that any of the following counts: a JLPT N2 or higher certificate, a BJT (Business Japanese Test) score of 400 or above, 20+ years of residence in Japan, or graduation from a Japanese university or school. Applicants also need either an advanced degree (master's, doctorate, or professional degree) in management or business, or at least 3 years of verified experience managing a business. Time spent on the 特定活動 「起業準備活動」 (startup-preparation) status counts toward this experience — that is, time on a startup visa is credited. According to unofficial reports, this requirement has been softened somewhat, and an MBA is accepted as qualifying. An independent review of the business plan by a certified professional is required — a 中小企業診断士 (SME management consultant), 公認会計士 (CPA), or 税理士 (tax accountant). Exactly what this review/confirmation (確認) must contain is unclear in practice even to lawyers who handle visa cases. JETRO is mentioned as a possible source of consulting and supporting documentation, by analogy with the Invest Tokyo certificate used for the startup visa. A genuine office appropriate to the scale of the business is required; a residential unit cannot serve as the office — this requirement predates the 2025 reform as well. The office must have a separate street entrance and be a self-contained space; entering through a residential unit where someone lives does not qualify (this was the actual basis for a real refusal in one case). A shared building corridor is presumably acceptable. A share booth in a coworking space does not qualify — a separate office contract is needed. Serviced-office arrangements (Tensho, Regus, Hello Office and similar), which take the form of a "service agreement" or "temporary use agreement" rather than a full lease under the Land and Building Lease Act, are sometimes informally considered insufficiently "stable" by individual officers, though no written official guidance against them has been found.