Objective Conditions for Multiple Co-Founders to Obtain the Japan Business Manager Visa: Strict Rules on Investment Ratios and Division of Duties

This article is written by a Japanese local.

Multiple investors or business partners pool their funds to establish a corporation in Japan. The hypothesis that “since we are all listed as investors, everyone should be able to obtain the Business Manager Visa” is an extremely dangerous misunderstanding in immigration practice.

In the screening by the Immigration Services Agency, the basic principle is that the Business Manager Visa is granted to “one person per company (the top executive only).” The hurdle for two or more foreigners to obtain this visa simultaneously is astronomically high. If you proceed with an application based on a vague business plan, you will mercilessly face a denial (co-rejection) judged on the grounds that “there are no independent management duties for two people.”

This article logically explains the “strict evidentiary conditions” that must be met to legally establish a joint venture and ensure all co-founders win their visas.

1. The “One Person Per Company” Principle: Legal Background of the Difficulty

Why does Immigration strictly limit the Business Manager Visa for multiple people? Because it is unnatural for a business to have a number of executives disproportionate to its size. For a small company, one executive is sufficient, and it is proper for other members to be employed under employee visas such as “Engineer/Specialist in Humanities/International Services.”

To obtain visas as “executives” for two or more people, you must prove with objective data that each person’s duties are not employee-level tasks (field labor or simple clerical work), but fall completely within the scope of “management and administration,” with enough volume to be conducted full-time.

2. Condition 1: Clarifying “Decision-Making Power” Through Investment Ratios

The choice to “invest equally at 50% each” in joint management works extremely unfavorably in the screening. Under corporate law, holding 50% of the shares each means that if opinions clash, resolutions at the general meeting of shareholders will fall into a deadlock, leading Immigration to judge that the continuity of the business is severely jeopardized.

A logic clarifying who holds ultimate management responsibility and decision-making power is essential. For example, “Representative Director A holds 51% or more, and Director B holds 49% or less.” You must create an intentional difference in investment ratios and present an organizational structure in the articles of incorporation or shareholder agreement where the decision-making process functions effectively during contingencies.

3. Condition 2: Complete Separation of “Division of Duties” and Proof of Work Volume

What Immigration scrutinizes most strictly is, “Is this truly a business scale that requires two (or more) managers?” Vague explanations like “We will oversee general management together” or “We will discuss and decide” will result in an immediate denial.

You must prove, using detailed Job Descriptions, that the business areas handled by each person are completely separated and that each functions as the top of their respective field (with authority above a department head).

• [Objective Model of Division]
  • Executive A (CEO): Cultivation of overseas markets, supervision of import/export routes, negotiation with overseas clients, financial and fundraising decisions.
  • Executive B (COO): Supervision of domestic sales, direction of the product development department, domestic HR and labor management, building domestic alliances.

Furthermore, you must prove through a meticulous business plan—based on numerical data such as sales forecasts, expected number of transactions, and number of employees to be hired—that each role holds a “sufficient work volume to fill 8 hours every day strictly with management and administrative duties.”

4. Condition 3: Business Scale and Appropriateness of “Executive Compensation”

Having two executives means the company must continue to pay “executive compensation (a sufficient amount to maintain an independent livelihood)” for two people every month. The business plan immediately after establishment will be questioned on whether it secures a sufficient sales scale (capital size, contract status with clients) to pay compensation for two people while still turning a profit as a company. A business plan with low sales projections will be judged as “lacking economic rationality to maintain two people as executives.”

5. Trouble Cases and Risk Avoidance in Joint Management

Case A: Denial Due to Overlapping Duties

[Situation] Two people opened a restaurant and stated in the business plan that both would be in charge of “store operations management and staff guidance.”
[Result] It was judged that two managers are unnecessary to manage one store, and it was highly suspected they would actually engage in “fieldwork (simple labor)” like serving customers and cooking, resulting in both being denied.
[Avoidance Measure] For store-based businesses, a plan completely eliminating overlapping duties is required, such as assuming multi-store deployment, or completely separating authority where one handles “store development and fundraising” and the other handles “site supervision and menu development direction.”

Case B: Joint Management in Name Only

[Situation] To help a friend obtain a visa, they were made to only invest and applied as a “co-founder.”
[Result] Lacking objective evidence of actual job duties and involvement in management, it was deemed a false application.
[Avoidance Measure] The Business Manager Visa is not an “Investor Visa.” It is essential to prove the reality of not only investing but actually participating in management and exercising authority.

6. Conclusion: Avoiding “Co-Rejection” from Careless Team Startups

Applying for a Business Manager Visa through joint management requires “advanced evidentiary work” on a different level from a sole application. The separation of duties, the rationality of decision-making based on investment ratios, and the appropriateness of the business scale are scrutinized down to the millimeter. The slightest doubt can lead to the worst-case scenario where one is approved and the other is denied (or all are denied).

Before establishing a corporation and investing capital, thoroughly verify the objective validity of your business plan to ensure your team’s concept can withstand Immigration’s strict screening criteria, and proceed with procedures only after building a rock-solid structure.