Beijing’s Fengtai District Government Upholds Decision in Review Case Filed by Wuxi Xishan Petitioner Yin Baimei Over Fengtai Police’s Refusal to Open a Case

(Rights Defense Network Information Center report) On October 15, 2026, this outlet learned that Beijing’s Fengtai District Government had upheld the decision in a review case filed by Wuxi Xishan petitioner Yin Baimei over Fengtai police’s refusal to open a case.

On October 1, 2026, Yin Baimei, a petitioner from Yangjian Town, Xishan District, Wuxi, received Administrative Reconsideration Decision No. Feng Zheng Fu Zi [2026] 4654 from the Fengtai District People’s Government of Beijing, which upheld the Fengtai Public Security Sub-Bureau’s Notice of Non-Filing of an Administrative Case, Jing Gong Feng (Da) Bu Li Gao Zi [2026] 50241, issued to Yin Baimei.

It is understood that on June 28, 2026, shortly after Yin Baimei, a petitioner from Yangjian Town, Xishan District, Wuxi, arrived at Beijing South Railway Station from Wuxi, staff from the Wuxi Beijing Liaison Office, Xishan District Petition Affairs Office and Yangjian Police Station of the Xishan Public Security Sub-Bureau took her directly from the station to the Wuxi Beijing Liaison Office (the Jinghua Hotel in Fengtai District, a black jail used specifically to illegally detain petitioners). After illegally detaining Yin Baimei in a room, Ling Sheng, the head of petition affairs in Xishan District, instructed personnel to seize her belongings, including her mobile phone, identity card and complaint materials. Yin Baimei resisted strongly and was violently shoved and pinned down, causing her to fall and lose consciousness. She lay on the ground, unable to breathe, and only gradually regained consciousness after urgently taking nitroglycerin. Yin Baimei sustained serious injuries to several parts of her body, with bruising in multiple places. On June 29, police officers from the Xishan Public Security Sub-Bureau of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau and petition affairs staff escorted her back to Wuxi.

After returning to Wuxi, Yin Baimei immediately called Beijing 110 to report the incident. She also mailed a “Crime Report” to the Fengtai Sub-Bureau of the Beijing Public Security Bureau, asking it to open a case and investigate the illegal and criminal conduct of Ling Sheng and others.

On July 8, 2026, the Fengtai Public Security Sub-Bureau issued Notice of Non-Filing of an Administrative Case No. Jing Gong Feng (Da) Bu Li Gao Zi [2026] 50241, on the grounds that Yin Baimei had been received and persuaded to return by government staff, and that government conduct did not fall within the jurisdiction of public security authorities. Dissatisfied with the notice, Yin Baimei applied for administrative reconsideration with the Fengtai District Government. On September 29, 2026, the Fengtai District Government issued Administrative Reconsideration Decision No. Feng Zheng Fu Zi [2026] 4654, upholding the Fengtai Public Security Sub-Bureau’s notice of non-filing.

From the “Administrative Reconsideration Response” and “Work Statement” submitted by the Fengtai Public Security Sub-Bureau and provided by the Fengtai District Government, Yin Baimei discovered that the Fengtai Public Security Sub-Bureau had based its decision not to open a case following her report solely on a “Work Statement” from Yangjian Police Station of the Xishan Public Security Sub-Bureau of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau.

The Fengtai District Government accepted the Fengtai Public Security Sub-Bureau’s “Administrative Reconsideration Response” and “Work Statement,” characterizing the violent petition suppression, illegal detention and robbery of Yin Baimei by staff from the Wuxi Beijing Liaison Office and Xishan District Petition Affairs Office, as well as police officers, as government conduct involving “receiving petitioners and persuading them to return.” In doing so, it evaded its duty and openly acted as a protective umbrella for the Chinese Communist Party’s Wuxi authorities’ criminal conduct involving violent abductions and the suppression of petitioners.

Yin Baimei believes that the “Work Statement” has already proved that Wuxi police abused their powers and engaged in illegal and criminal conduct!

The original text of the “Work Statement” reads:

To: Dahongmen Police Station, Fengtai Sub-Bureau:

We hereby provide your unit with the following information concerning Yin Baimei (ID number 32022219690824056X), a key petitioner in our jurisdiction:

In response to Yin Baimei’s causing trouble in Beijing, our unit formed a team to receive petitioners. At around 11 p.m. on June 28, 2026, the team carried out work to receive and persuade Yin Baimei to return at the Jinghua Hotel in Fengtai District, and on June 29 brought her back to Yangjian, Xishan, Wuxi, for control.

The team was led by Ling Sheng (the person responsible for petition affairs for Xishan District in Beijing), and all team members involved in receiving the petitioner were public officials. During the process of receiving and persuading her to return, staff did not beat or injure Yin Baimei, abduct her, or take possession of her personal property. Law enforcement was conducted in a civilized manner throughout.”

This is hereby stated for your information.

Yangjian Police Station, Xishan Public Security Sub-Bureau, Wuxi Public Security Bureau July 7, 2026

First, there is no legal basis for the practice of receiving petitioners. The laws and regulations related to petitioning only provide for “dissuasion, criticism and education”; they make no provision for “receiving petitioners” or “persuading them to return.” This is purely an abuse of power.

Second, the original purpose of persuading petitioners to return is to dissuade, criticize and educate them so that they return voluntarily. Now it has become an excuse for abducting and intercepting petitioners.

In practice, not a single Wuxi petitioner in Beijing has truly been “persuaded to return”; they have all been forcibly abducted back to Wuxi. Some abductions are carried out directly by Wuxi petition affairs and public security personnel, while others are carried out by hired black security guards in Beijing.

Third, police have no authority to participate in receiving petitioners or persuading them to return. Wuxi police had no legal basis for going to Beijing to receive and persuade Yin Baimei to return. This is not a statutory duty stipulated in Article 6 of the “People’s Police Law”; it constitutes acting beyond their authority and abusing their powers.

Fourth, even if Yin Baimei had committed an illegal act in Beijing, Wuxi police had no authority to deal with it on the spot in Beijing.

Yin Baimei had only just arrived at Beijing South Railway Station from Wuxi when the Wuxi Beijing Liaison Office intercepted her and forcibly took her to the black jail at the Jinghua Hotel. How could she have “caused trouble”? Wuxi police maliciously classify all petitioning as “causing trouble.” Even if Yin Baimei had “caused trouble” in Beijing, the matter would first fall under the jurisdiction of Beijing police. Wuxi police had no authority to enforce the law against Yin Baimei in person in Beijing. Beijing police would first have to secure the evidence and then transfer the case to Wuxi police in accordance with the law before Wuxi police could exercise jurisdiction.

Fifth, the “Work Statement” says that Yin Baimei was brought back to Wuxi for “control,” confirming the underworld-style stability-maintenance tactics the Chinese Communist Party’s Wuxi authorities have long used against people defending their rights: soft-violence tactics such as tracking and monitoring petitioners and illegally detaining them. Wuxi petitioners have long suffered abuse and persecution through these tactics. This is also the secret behind the Chinese Communist Party’s Wuxi authorities’ pursuit of “political achievements” in stability maintenance for many years.

Sixth, even more shamefully, Wuxi police used a single “Work Statement” to claim that they had “conducted law enforcement in a civilized manner throughout.” The Fengtai police and Fengtai District Government also relied solely on Wuxi police’s six words, “conducted law enforcement in a civilized manner throughout,” to conclude that Yin Baimei had not been illegally harmed, and consequently issued a notice of non-filing.

Yin Baimei said she would bring a lawsuit against the reconsideration decision to protect her legitimate rights and interests.

Separately, according to a Wuxi rights defender, the Chinese Communist Party’s Wuxi authorities now rely entirely on violent, underworld-style methods to surround, pursue and intercept people petitioning to defend their rights, and do not hesitate to use such violence to attack and suppress them. Whether petitioners travel to Nanjing or Beijing, unless they use unregistered means of transportation, they will be closely monitored as soon as they buy a ticket. Some are abducted at the station, some en route, and some are intercepted and abducted at their destination (as happened to Yin Baimei). Throughout this process, Wuxi police have played the role of violent enforcers, abusing their police powers to keep petitioners under control.

In addition to the methods above, the Chinese Communist Party’s Wuxi authorities also use criminal measures to maintain stability against people petitioning to defend their rights. When petitioners have committed no illegal or criminal acts, police arbitrarily assign them a criminal charge and open a criminal case. They then deprive petitioners of their personal liberty by taking criminal coercive measures against the “criminal suspects.” Some “criminal suspects” break through the blockade and leave Wuxi; Wuxi police then immediately pursue and arrest them, claiming it is necessary for the investigation. If a “criminal suspect” is “missing,” police will also activate the “online wanted notice” system to hunt down the petitioner.

Under the shadow of the Chinese Communist Party’s Wuxi police, Wuxi petitioners are now living through unprecedented “terror.”