Immigration issues self-contradicting claims about Artist visas.

ISA states on their website that there are **two** types of Artist visas: one with a sponsor or contract and one without, where the artist works independently. To quote #4 on this list:

[https://www.isa.go.jp/en/applications/procedures/shin\_henko10\_02.html](https://www.isa.go.jp/en/applications/procedures/shin_henko10_02.html)

​

>(1) For artists engaged in activities **based on contracts** with public and private institutions or individuals:Documents certifying details of activities, the organization, its status, and remuneration – 1 copy
>
>(2) For artists engaged in activities **not based on contracts** with public and private institutions nor individuals:
>
>Documents created by applicant describing specific details of activities, period, and expected income generated by intended activities (can be written in any suitable format) – as required

You can also find these two visas described on several Japanese scrivener/attorneys websites.

However, on the phone, I have been told by both ISA and Japanese embassies in America that the second visa – without a sponsor – does not exist. They speak as if they have never heard of such a visa. It is “impossible” to apply without a sponsor. What is going on here? Is this a communication problem? Do people who answer such questions not know what they are talking about? Is their website and scriveners’ websites universally wrong? Are they preemptively assuming the applicant could not meet the high standard for that visa – but the visa actually does exist – and therefore saying don’t even bother; it’s a waste of time?

The artist I am doing this research for has been assured by Japanese museum curators and art dealers that her professional qualifications more than meet the high standard for a Japanese artist visa – hoping she moves to Japan – but we’re hitting this wall here with conflicting claims from immigration.

Thanks for any insight!