A Citizen’s Legal Inquiry into the “Exit Ban”

On March 17, 2026, Feng Zhenghu was preparing to board Japan Airlines flight JL082 at Shanghai Hongqiao Airport to visit relatives and travel in Japan. His ticket had been confirmed, his baggage had been checked in, and he had successfully passed customs, but at the final exit inspection checkpoint, he was stopped on the spot and subjected to an “exit restriction.”

The explanation given by border inspection personnel was solely verbal: under Article 12, Item (5) of the Exit and Entry Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China — “may endanger national security or interests” — and they said the decision to “prohibit exit” had come from the “relevant competent department of the State Council.” Based on this, it may be inferred that the decision-making authority was the Ministry of Public Security. However, throughout the entire process of negotiation and being turned back at the border, Feng Zhenghu was never able to obtain any written “Exit Restriction Decision” or similar legal document.

On one side is the conclusively established fact that he was “restricted from traveling”; on the other is the “written evidence” absent in the legal sense. This disparity directly concerns whether a citizen can know precisely why they have been restricted, how long the restriction will last, and who exactly made the decision — and, even more importantly, whether they can subsequently file an appeal, apply for administrative reconsideration, or bring a lawsuit in accordance with the law. Faced with the authorities’ “verbal ban,” Feng Zhenghu chose to take up legal arms, initiate a government information disclosure procedure, and send his questions to the Ministry of Public Security.

I. The Moment He Was Restricted from Leaving China: The Facts Were Clear, but the “Document Was Missing”

Feng Zhenghu’s experience is typical: he and his wife have long lived in Shanghai, while his other relatives have settled in Japan, and traveling to Japan each year to visit relatives and sightsee had been a normal part of his life. When he was stopped on March 17, apart from the verbal notification from border inspection personnel, he received no paper document that he could take away.

Although video footage from the exit checkpoint is sufficient to prove the physical fact that he was “prohibited from leaving the country,” the written basis that should have existed at the “procedural level” has become a mystery. For ordinary citizens, what is often most perplexing and unsettling is not a single frustrating outcome, but the ambiguity surrounding the exercise of power: “Why was an ordinary trip to visit relatives elevated to a matter of ‘potentially endangering national security and interests’? Could there have been a misjudgment or abuse? If the ban does exist, how long does it last?”

In the absence of a written decision, a citizen’s right to know has been substantively deprived, while the channels for seeking remedies against this administrative act have effectively been invisibly blocked.

II. The First Inquiry: Applying to the Ministry of Public Security for Disclosure of Three Core Pieces of Information

To bring the “invisible exercise of power” back into the realm of “visible legal texts,” on March 25, 2026, Feng Zhenghu formally mailed an Application for Government Information Disclosure to the Ministry of Public Security pursuant to the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Disclosure of Government Information. The core requests clearly targeted three categories of key information:

1. Document number: The document number of any document produced or retained by the Ministry of Public Security concerning the “determination that Feng Zhenghu might endanger national security after leaving China and the decision to prohibit him from leaving the country.”

2. Document content or original: The specific content or original of the aforementioned decision to “prohibit exit.”

3. Restriction period: The specific period during which he was restricted from leaving the country (through what year, month, and day).

To verify the authenticity of the application, he attached detailed materials including a Japanese visa, round-trip air tickets, his boarding pass from that day, and a copy of his identity card. The mailing-tracking record shows that the Ministry of Public Security formally received the application on March 26, 2026.

This application was not a general request to “get an explanation,” but precisely targeted the crux of the administrative act: as long as a decision restricting exit exists, there must — and must necessarily — be documentary traces of its creation and retention. Requesting disclosure of this information means requiring the administrative authority to place the exercise of power within the cage of procedure.

III. Expiration of the Statutory Response Period and a Forceful “Demand Letter”

However, the system did not produce a response as scheduled.

Under the relevant provisions of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Disclosure of Government Information, when an administrative authority receives an application for government information disclosure and cannot respond on the spot, it must respond within 20 working days from the date it receives the application. Counting from the Ministry of Public Security’s receipt of the application on March 26, and excluding statutory holidays, the statutory 20-working-day period expired on April 26, 2026.

Until the deadline expired, Feng Zhenghu had received no response whatsoever regarding the application — neither a reply approving disclosure nor an explanation for refusing disclosure; there was not even a notice of an extension of the response period.

Faced with the administrative authority’s “failure to respond by the deadline (administrative inaction),” Feng Zhenghu did not choose to wait passively without end. On April 28, he sent the Ministry of Public Security’s Government Information Disclosure Office a Letter Urging a Response to the Overdue Government Information Disclosure Application.

In this demand letter, Feng Zhenghu clearly identified three levels of problems:

First, he stated the breach of obligation: he expressly pointed out that the Ministry of Public Security had exceeded the deadline by four working days without performing its legal duty, and requested that it respond promptly in accordance with the law; even if disclosure was refused, it was still required to explain the reasons in accordance with the law.

Second, he reiterated the harm to his rights: he stressed that the administrative authority’s practice of having “incomplete records” or “refusing to provide a basis” had seriously infringed a citizen’s right to know and the freedom of movement guaranteed by the Constitution.

Third, he expressed his position on defending his rights: he voiced strong doubts about the easy application of so-called “national security measures” to an ordinary visit to relatives, while also stating that he hoped to resolve the matter peacefully and appropriately within the framework of the law, and urged the Ministry of Public Security to administer in accordance with the law.

This demand letter was a formal reminder to the administrative authority regarding its inaction, and further established the chain of evidence for any subsequent application for administrative reconsideration or administrative lawsuit.

Conclusion: Requiring Public Authorities to Provide a “Written Response” in the Light of Day

Feng Zhenghu’s process of defending his rights is a textbook example of a citizen exercising their rights in accordance with the law. From encountering a “verbal interception” without any written documentation, to submitting an Application for Government Information Disclosure, and then promptly issuing a demand letter after the statutory deadline expired, every step was taken at a key point in the legal procedure.

In this case, information disclosure is far more than merely “requesting a document”; it is the fulcrum for shifting the legality of administrative procedures. It asks a matter of common sense: when the state apparatus restricts a citizen’s basic rights in the name of “national security,” can it really refuse even to provide a written Decision specifying the reasons and duration?

The law should not remain only on paper; it should also be reflected in every specific act of administrative enforcement — only when there is an authority, a legal basis, a procedure, a time limit, and a document can there be a remedy. The application and demand letter sent by Feng Zhenghu were gentle and restrained, yet sufficiently firm. They merely reiterated the most basic principle of the rule of law: Please provide the legal basis, and allow power to operate in a visible manner.