Feng Zhenghu: The Boundaries of Power and the Bottom Line of Rights: Comprehensive Legal Analysis Report on Feng Zhenghu’s Three Exit-Restriction Incidents (2008–2026)

Submitted to: Li Qiang, Premier of the State Council

Copied to: Wang Xiaohong, Minister of Public Security, and Li Wenzhang, Director of the National Public Complaints and Proposals Administration

Report author: Feng Zhenghu (AI Zhenghu Case-Review Team)

Date: September 15, 2026

Research framework: empirical analysis of constitutional law, administrative law, international human rights law, and administrative regulations governing exit and entry

【Abstract】

A citizen’s departure from the territory of their own country and free return to their homeland are a natural extension, in the sphere of foreign relations, of the personal freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, and are also basic human rights recognized by modern civilized societies. Based on the detailed case files, government-information disclosure records, administrative reconsideration documents, and a series of litigation documents concerning three incidents in which Mr. Feng Zhenghu, a renowned Chinese constitutional scholar and civil-rights advocate, was subjected to exit restrictions in 2008, 2015, and 2026, and incorporating the Regulations of the State Council on Exit and Entry Administration, promulgated on July 31, 2026 and effective September 15 of the same year (State Council Order No. 841, hereinafter the “New Regulations”), this report provides a comprehensive reconstruction of the facts and legal analysis of typical cases spanning nearly two decades.

Empirical research shows that the three incidents clearly trace a trajectory of the degradation of the rule of law in the exercise of public power: from “defects in documents,” to a “formal oral black box,” and ultimately to extralegal control in the form of a “three-nothing” informal notice—“no document, no reasons, and no time limit”:

1. 2008 (documents existed, but service was unlawful and the judiciary exceeded its authority): an unauthorized interception was carried out in the name of “enforcing a fine”; at the port of entry, only a temporary faxed photocopy from the court was relied upon, while the original had never previously been served on him, creating the procedural absurdity that it “expired upon issuance.”

2. 2015 (no document, relying solely on an oral black box and an empty invocation of statutory provisions): the authorities mechanically invoked Article 12(5) of the Exit and Entry Administration Law, concerning the possibility of “endangering national security,” relayed the order orally across departments, and refused to issue any written decision. After more than three years of successive litigation and verification by the State Secrecy Bureau, the Ministry of Public Security was ultimately compelled to correct the error and rescind the ban on its own initiative.

3. 2026 (the “three-nothing” informal-notice interception: no document, no reasons, and no time limit): a septuagenarian traveling to Japan to visit relatives was stopped at the port of entry. The authorities not only refused to show an official letter, but instead handed him a note bearing a police officer’s handwritten telephone number; the administrative authorities even continued to delay their obligation to respond during subsequent statutory government-information disclosure procedures.

Core legal consensus and arguments:

1. The constitutional status of freedom of exit and the bottom line of due process: the right to leave the country is an inseparable component of citizens’ basic personal freedom. Any restriction of that right must adhere to the “principle of statutory reservation,” the “principle of due process,” and the “principle of proportionality.” Although national security and criminal investigations have special characteristics, they are by no means extralegal privileges exempting the authorities from “procedures prescribed by law” and “legality review.”

2. Procedural exemption is by no means substantive authorization: Article 6 of the New Regulations establishes for the first time a normative structure in which “written notification is the principle, and non-notification is the exception.” However, that article is only a special provision governing notification procedures; it does not grant administrative organs substantive authority to arbitrarily restrict citizens’ personal freedom beyond the authority conferred by higher-level law.

3. Build institutional safeguards to prevent exceptions from swallowing the rule: legislation and implementing rules must tighten the standards for applying “non-notification,” establish approval thresholds at the provincial or ministerial level, specify confidentiality periods, create dynamic verification and automatic-unlocking mechanisms in border-inspection systems, and establish an independent judicial firewall through in-camera review.

4. Calibrate the coordinates of the rule of law through rational rights defense: For nearly two decades, Feng Zhenghu has insisted on defending his rights within the legally prescribed framework—from staging a hunger strike and waiting at Narita Airport for the right to return to China, to continuing, in his seventies, to engage in rational dialogue through standardized information-disclosure requests, demands for action, administrative reconsideration, and administrative litigation when confronted with “informal-notice interception.” This is not merely the history of an individual’s struggle for rights; it is also a milestone example of advancing China’s exit-and-entry administration from “arbitrary power” toward “good laws and good governance.”

Keywords: Feng Zhenghu; exit restrictions; national security; due process of law; State Council Order No. 841; administrative remedies; principle of proportionality

I. Background of the Party and Presentation of the Issue

In a modern system based on the rule of law, citizens’ crossing of national borders is not a privilege bestowed by the state, but a basic expression of the personal freedom, freedom of movement, and right to international exchange enjoyed by citizens. Article 33 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China expressly provides that “the state respects and protects human rights”; Article 37 establishes the fundamental principle that citizens’ personal freedom is inviolable; and Article 41 grants citizens the right to criticize, make complaints and accusations against, and report any state organ or state functionary. At the level of international law, Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 12(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) both expressly provide: “Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”

Feng Zhenghu, born on July 1, 1954, holds a master’s degree in economics from Fudan University. He is the former chairman of the Shanghai Enterprise Development Research Association, director of the China Enterprise Development Institute, one of the first signatories of Charter 08, and founder of the Constitutional Rights Defense Network. For many years, he has practiced the rule-of-law principle of “unity of knowledge and action,” advocating the defense of citizens’ rights with the Constitution and the law as weapons. In 2009, while defending the right of Chinese citizens to return to their own country as guaranteed by the Constitution, he spent 92 days sleeping and protesting in the immigration-inspection area of Tokyo’s Narita International Airport. The protest ultimately led to correction at the national level in accordance with the law and his successful return to China, becoming a landmark human-rights event with broad international influence.

Feng Zhenghu’s relatives are settled in Japan, and for many years the family maintained the normal practice of traveling to Japan to visit relatives and for sightseeing. The right to visit relatives and family reunification are basic interests protected by the Constitution and international human rights law. Repeatedly imposing exit restrictions of uncertain duration on him constitutes a continuing infringement of citizens’ family life and personal freedom.

However, in long-standing law-enforcement practice, restrictions on citizens’ departure from the country (commonly known as “border control”) have often been distorted into a preventive-control measure lacking transparency and evading procedural constraints. When citizens are suddenly blocked in border-inspection channels at ports of entry, they often face a state in which their rights are left in limbo: “not knowing who imposed the restriction, why they were restricted, how long the restriction would last, or how to seek a remedy.”

On July 31, 2026, the Regulations of the State Council on Exit and Entry Administration (State Council Order No. 841) were formally promulgated. Article 6 of the administrative regulation established for the first time as a statutory principle the “written notification of the facts, reasons, grounds, and avenues for remedy,” but the immediately following exception—that “where circumstances may affect national security, the investigation of criminal cases, or other such circumstances, the party concerned may not be notified”—once again brought the contest between the boundaries of power and the protection of rights to the forefront. Using Feng Zhenghu’s complete case files spanning nearly two decades as an empirical reference point makes it possible to precisely examine the institutional pathologies long present in this field and provide practical reference for constructing a sound and complete legal defense for exit and entry.

II. Factual Reconstruction and Comprehensive Review of the Three Exit-Restriction Incidents

(1) The 2008 “Fine Enforcement Dispute”: Procedural Reversal and Failure of Service in the Name of the Judiciary

Date: May 22, 2008

Port of occurrence: Shanghai Pudong International Airport

Flight information: China Eastern Airlines flight MU271 (scheduled to depart for Japan at 16:30)

Evidence presented at the scene: photocopy of a fax from the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court (2008 Hu Er Zhong Zhi Xing Zi No. 44)

1. Facts

On the afternoon of May 22, 2008, Feng Zhenghu obtained his boarding pass for China Eastern flight MU271 at Pudong Airport and completed baggage check-in. He was suddenly stopped at the border-inspection gate. The officers at the scene did not produce the original of a decision bearing the seal of a legally authorized organ; they showed him only a photocopy temporarily faxed by the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court (2008 Hu Er Zhong Zhi Xing Zi No. 44, issued on March 20, 2008). Before this, the court had never lawfully served Feng Zhenghu with the original of any formal decision.

2. Analysis of procedural and substantive violations

The performance period was rendered meaningless (“expired upon issuance”): the execution notice issued by the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court was dated March 20, 2008, and the payment deadline stated in the notice was also “before March 20, 2008.” This document, which “expired upon service,” deprived the party concerned of a reasonable period for defense and performance.

Public authorities artificially created the inability to perform: after Feng Zhenghu was released upon completion of his sentence, he proactively contacted the enforcement judge dozens of times and requested a bank account into which he could pay the fine in full. He even brought cash to the court, but was repeatedly passed off and refused. The public authority artificially created a “state of nonperformance” and then used it as grounds to restrict his departure, seriously reversing the causal relationship.

Insufficient higher-level legal basis and administrative interference with the judiciary: the Criminal Procedure Law and related laws did not provide that failure to pay a criminal fine in full could serve as a statutory ground for restricting departure. Between 2003 and 2008, Feng Zhenghu had lawfully traveled between China and Japan 14 times. The ban was in fact administrative control exercised by relevant local departments in the name of a judicial organ to prevent him from leaving the country during a particular sensitive period.

3. Result of remedies

Feng Zhenghu promptly initiated administrative litigation and an objection to enforcement in accordance with the law. On June 26, 2008, the parties reached an agreement for payment of the fine in installments. Following continued legal negotiations, the relevant departments corrected the error on their own initiative, and Feng Zhenghu successfully left China for Japan to visit relatives on April 1, 2009.

(2) The 2015 “National Security Clause Case”: Oral Black Box, 20 Successive Lawsuits, and the Ministry of Public Security’s Voluntary Correction

Date: October 5, 2015

Port of occurrence: Shanghai Pudong International Airport

Flight information: Air China flight CA919 (scheduled to depart for Japan at 14:15)

Evidence presented at the scene: no written document; border-inspection police orally invoked Article 12(5) of the Exit and Entry Administration Law (oral notification from the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau)

1. Facts

On the morning of October 5, 2015, Feng Zhenghu obtained his boarding pass for Air China flight CA919 and checked his luggage (seat 45A, baggage receipt CA230167). At approximately 12:30, he was stopped and detained at the border-inspection counter by Pudong border-inspection officer Hu Shiyun (police ID No. 034525). The officer told him orally: “We have received notification from the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau. Pursuant to Article 12(5) of the Exit and Entry Administration Law, you may endanger national security after leaving the country.” The officers forcibly removed his checked baggage, canceled his boarding eligibility, and explicitly stated: “The Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau gave only an oral notification and refuses to issue a written notification.”

2. Multiple procedural violations and black-box characteristics

The formal requirement of a written document completely collapsed: a major administrative coercive measure restricting a citizen’s basic personal freedom relied throughout solely on oral relaying, with no official seal, document number, or service document.

Zero notification of the duration and termination conditions: the authorities did not inform him of the specific duration of the exit restriction, the review mechanism, or the conditions for lifting it, leaving the citizen’s rights suspended indefinitely.

Complete absence of factual support for the individual case: the administrative organ provided no specific facts or leads indicating that Feng Zhenghu was suspected of endangering national security, turning an abstract statutory provision into an arbitrarily applicable “catch-all offense.”

The avenue for remedies was structurally blocked: because the authorities refused to provide the full name of the deciding organ and the document number, the party concerned faced institutional barriers in bringing litigation and applying for reconsideration, including “no clearly identified respondent” and “no specific administrative act.”

3. Remedy process and comprehensive correction

Feng Zhenghu embarked on a “full-chain legal breakthrough” lasting more than three years, producing a total of 20 systematic documents in the “Feng Zhenghu Exit Case Litigation Series”:

Information disclosure and rebuttal of requests for supplementation: he repeatedly submitted government-information disclosure applications to the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau and rebutted, one by one, three malicious notices requiring supplementation issued on the grounds that his “application was unclear.”

Multilevel administrative reconsideration and verification by the State Secrecy Bureau: he applied for administrative reconsideration to the Ministry of Public Security and the Beijing municipal government. In response to the Ministry of Public Security’s refusal to disclose information on the grounds that it “involved state secrets,” he applied to the State Secrecy Bureau for disclosure. The State Secrecy Bureau formally confirmed that “there are no documents or classified-document numbers concerning Feng Zhenghu’s endangering national security,” completely exposing the pretext of using secrecy as a cover for black-box operations.

State Council administrative adjudication and litigation in multiple locations: he submitted an application for administrative adjudication to the State Council Legislative Affairs Office and brought lawsuits in people’s courts in multiple locations concerning the inaction of border-inspection, public-security, and reconsideration organs.

Successful correction: under pressure from intensive litigation and well-grounded legal arguments, the Ministry of Public Security voluntarily revoked the exit ban on January 16, 2019. The Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau allowed him to pass, and Feng Zhenghu successfully left China for Japan to visit relatives that day. In February of the same year, he lawfully withdrew more than 20 pending cases. This substantively demonstrated that the accusation maintained for the preceding three years had been entirely fabricated.

(3) The 2026 “Hongqiao Airport Informal-Notice Case”: Degeneration of Public Power and the Crisis of “Three-Nothing” Interception

Date: March 17, 2026

Port of occurrence: Shanghai Hongqiao International Airport

Flight information: Japan Airlines flight JL082 (scheduled to depart for Tokyo at 13:10)

Evidence presented at the scene: a handwritten slip with the mobile-phone number of “Officer Zhou”; no official seal, no document number, and no written decision

1. Facts

From January 2019 through July 2025 (apart from the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, when travel was objectively impossible), Feng Zhenghu and his wife made a total of five normal round trips between China and Japan to visit relatives and for sightseeing. All exit and entry procedures were completed smoothly, and they had no record of any violation of law or regulations.

On March 17, 2026, 71-year-old Feng Zhenghu and his wife, a woman in her seventies identified as Ms. Chen who suffers from chronic vertigo and other illnesses, held valid passports and a multiple-entry Japanese visa (visa No. FA4524099) and planned to travel to Japan on Japan Airlines flight JL082 to visit relatives. At 11:00 that day, they obtained boarding passes (seats 28G/28F) and checked their luggage. At approximately 12:00, after passing through customs, they were suddenly stopped by several officers at the border-inspection gate and taken into a closed meeting room. The officer in charge at the scene stated orally: “Pursuant to Article 12(5) of the Exit and Entry Administration Law, because you may endanger national security and interests, the relevant competent departments of the State Council have decided that you are not permitted to leave the country.”

2. In-depth analysis of the unlawful nature of the “three-nothing” measure

● No document (serious formal violation): the officers at the scene refused to show or serve any written decision bearing an official seal. What they ultimately handed over was an informal slip handwritten with the name of the contact person, “Officer Zhou,” and a mobile-phone number, asking him to coordinate with local personnel himself. Public power had completely degenerated into “informal-notice administration.”

● No reasons (absence of factual basis): the authorities stated no objective facts concerning any suspected violation of law, merely repeating the abstract concepts of the statutory provision. This seriously violated the administrative-law “principle of stating reasons” and the requirement of “conclusive evidence.”

● No time limit (indefinite suspension of personal freedom): the authorities did not state the start date, end date, termination conditions, or periodic review mechanism for the exit restriction, creating the unlawful state of an “indefinite restriction on personal freedom” and seriously violating the administrative principle of proportionality.

3. Consequential harm and questions concerning the statutory procedural loop

● Health and humanitarian harm: the sick elderly woman was frightened when suddenly subjected to forced interception, causing her blood pressure to spike and severe dizziness. She was forced to abandon the trip and return home, resulting in secondary health damage and interruption of the plan to visit relatives abroad.

● Procedural loop for rights defense: the parties did not stop at oral protest, but quickly placed the matter on a standardized rule-of-law track:

On March 25, 2026, they mailed a Government Information Disclosure Application to the Ministry of Public Security, precisely requesting the document number, original instrument, and duration of the restriction;

After the statutory response period expired, they lawfully issued a Demand for Action, preserving evidence of the administrative organ’s unlawful failure to act within the prescribed period;

On April 3, 2026, they formally submitted an Application for Administrative Reconsideration to the Ministry of Public Security, requesting the lawful revocation of the exit restriction, confirmation that the procedures were seriously unlawful, an order requiring submission of all evidence, and suspension of enforcement.

III. The Trajectory of the Degradation of the Rule of Law over Eighteen Years and Deep Institutional Pathologies

Viewed as a whole, Feng Zhenghu’s three exit-restriction incidents present a clear curve of the gradual loss of administrative procedural justice and expose deep institutional pathologies:

(1) Comprehensive Collapse of the Document System and Formal Administration

Formal administration is a basic attribute of modern public power. Major decisions involving the deprivation or restriction of citizens’ personal freedom and freedom of movement must contain the statutory elements of a written decision, official seal, factual basis, legal provisions, and avenues for remedy. The three incidents show that law-enforcement organs attempted to create an information vacuum through informal means such as “leaving no written record, affixing no official seal, relaying orders orally, and passing the buck with informal notes,” artificially reducing administrative coercive acts to unaccountable “invisible operations.” This not only violated the Administrative Penalty Law and the Administrative Compulsion Law, but substantively deprived the affected party of the rights to make statements and defenses and to seek remedies.

(2) Generalization of the Concept of “National Security” and One-Sided Shifting of the Burden of Proof

Under Article 34 of the Administrative Litigation Law, an administrative organ bears the burden of proof for the administrative act it has taken and must provide the evidence for that act and the normative documents on which it is based. The review established under Article 12(5) of the Exit and Entry Administration Law must be based on conclusive and specific objective facts in the individual case that are directly connected with the conduct and statements of the party concerned. However, administrative organs have long treated the provision as a catch-all excuse for exemption from liability: they neither preserved objective evidence in the case files nor presented substantive grounds in litigation or reconsideration. Public power thereby completely abandoned its statutory burden of proof.

(3) Using “Confidentiality” as a Shield to Evade Legal Supervision

When faced with government-information disclosure applications or administrative reconsideration, administrative organs often mechanically invoke “state secret” status to reject review. As a matter of legal principle, the decision to restrict departure itself produces binding force toward the affected party and has an external public character; it is by no means secret. Even if underlying intelligence involves confidentiality, an administrative organ still has an obligation to submit to the reconsideration organ or trial court a declassified summary of the evidence and approval records and accept legality supervision. “Confidentiality” must not become a privileged bulletproof vest allowing public power to depart from the rule-of-law track and evade judicial review.

(4) Serious Departure from the Administrative Principle of Proportionality

The principle of proportionality requires that administrative means be suitable for the purpose (suitability), that the means causing the least harm to citizens’ rights and interests be selected (necessity), and that the harm caused not be manifestly disproportionate to the interests pursued (proportionality in the narrow sense). Feng Zhenghu’s purpose in leaving China was to visit relatives and engage in cultural exchange, and his activities were entirely open and lawful. In the absence of any evidence showing that his departure would create a real and imminent danger, the relevant departments imposed a long-term, indefinite, comprehensive exit blockade, using extreme control measures to destroy a citizen’s family life. This constituted a serious trampling of the principle of proportionality.

IV. In-Depth Examination of Article 6 of the 2026 State Council Regulations: Institutional Progress and Institutional Risks

On July 31, 2026, the State Council formally promulgated the Regulations of the State Council on Exit and Entry Administration (State Council Order No. 841), which took effect on September 15, 2026. Article 6 is the core provision governing the notification procedure for exit restrictions:

【First paragraph · statutory principle】“For persons lawfully determined not to be permitted to leave the country, the deciding organ shall, in accordance with regulations, promptly notify the immigration-administration authority for implementation, and shall inform the party concerned in writing of the facts, reasons, grounds, and avenues for remedy concerning the prohibition on departure;”

【First paragraph · exception】“Where circumstances may affect national security, the investigation of criminal cases, or other such circumstances, the party concerned may not be notified.”

【Second paragraph · implementation coordination】 “When implementing a decision prohibiting departure, the immigration-administration authority shall inform the party concerned in accordance with the contents of the notification from the deciding organ.”

(1) Milestone significance: Establishing “written notification as the principle” at the level of administrative regulations

The first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 6 of the New Regulations has significant rule-of-law value:

Making the right to know statutory: it expressly establishes the deciding organ’s statutory obligation to provide written notification of the four core elements—“facts, reasons, grounds, and avenues for remedy”—entirely rejecting, at the level of the highest administrative legislation, the unwritten rule in grassroots law enforcement that “non-notification is the norm.”

Confirming the legitimacy of citizens’ rights defense: Feng Zhenghu’s demand since 2008 for a written decision and clear reasons and avenues for remedy has received full recognition of its legitimacy at the level of administrative regulations.

(2) Key legal distinction: procedural exemption is by no means substantive authorization

This must be strictly clarified as a matter of legal principle: Article 6 regulates “how to carry out the notification procedure,” rather than creating substantive authority to “restrict departure.”

The substantive authority to restrict citizens’ departure must strictly follow the principle of statutory reservation under the Legislation Law and comply with higher-level substantive laws, including Article 12 of the Exit and Entry Administration Law and the Criminal Procedure Law.

A deciding organ must not infer, merely because it enjoys the procedural exception of being “permitted not to notify,” that it possesses “the power to restrict personal freedom without being bound by substantive law.” Whenever a decision restricting departure is made, the internal case file must still contain lawful and adequate factual evidence, a clear legal basis, and standardized procedures for case filing and approval.

(3) Six major institutional risks of the exception clause (“broad, low, empty, late, lacking, and absent”)

Without strict constraints in detailed rules, the exception clause can easily become a refuge for arbitrary power, causing “the exception to swallow the rule”:

“Broad”—vague scope of application: the standard of “may affect” is extremely low and highly subjective; the catch-all wording “other such circumstances” can easily be expansively interpreted as general stability-maintenance control.

“Low”—approval threshold too low: there is no exclusive high-level approval procedure, allowing the deciding organ to authorize itself and exempt itself from the obligation to notify.

“Empty”—statutory remedies rendered hollow: the affected party does not know the deciding organ, document number, or grounds, leaving the doors to reconsideration and litigation formally open but substantively closed.

“Late”—the notification point is seriously delayed: the absence of advance warning results in citizens being suddenly intercepted at the port of entry after purchasing tickets and boarding, causing serious consequential property and health damage.

“Lacking”—absence of time limits and a dynamic exit mechanism: no requirement exists for “mandatory supplemental notification after declassification” or “automatic system unlocking upon expiration,” allowing temporary confidentiality to evolve into a lifelong unresolved entry.

“Absent”—lack of external supervision and judicial checks and balances: in cases involving state secrets, courts often abandon substantive adjudication because of the absence of an in-camera review mechanism.

V. Legal Assessment of the Feng Zhenghu Case and Breakthroughs in Remedies under the New Regulations

When the March 17, 2026 Feng Zhenghu Hongqiao Airport incident is examined under the New Regulations and the framework of administrative rule of law, its unlawful nature is clear: