Li Qiaochu: I have submitted a “Report on Administrative Reconsideration Supervision” to the higher-level administrative body regarding the Shandong Provincial Government’s “Decision to Dismiss the Administrative Reconsideration Application”

“Report on Administrative Reconsideration Supervision”

Reporter: Li Qiaochu

Administrative reconsideration authority being reported: Shandong Provincial People’s Government

Administrative reconsideration case involved: The reporter applied for the Shandong Provincial Prison Administration to perform its statutory duties. On July 15, 2026, the Shandong Provincial People’s x Government issued Lu Zheng Fu Bo Zi [2026] No. 1364, the Decision to Dismiss the Administrative Reconsideration Application (hereinafter, the dismissal decision), which the reporter received on July 16, 2026.

Basis for the report: Article 35 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China; Article 4 of Several Provisions on the Procedures for Handling Administrative Reconsideration Cases by the State Council (Guo Ban Fa [2026] No. 22).

Matter reported: The reporter requests that the State Council, pursuant to Article 35 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China, order the Shandong Provincial People’s Government to correct its dismissal of the reporter’s administrative reconsideration application without justifiable grounds; if necessary, the reporter requests that the State Council’s administrative reconsideration body directly accept the case.

I. Requests in the report

Order the Shandong Provincial People’s Government to correct dismissal decision Lu Zheng Fu Bo Zi [2026] No. 1364.

If necessary, have the State Council’s administrative reconsideration body directly accept the case.

Notify the reporter in writing of the outcome.

II. Basic facts

(I) Marriage application

On June 16, 2025, Xu Zhiyong, an inmate at Shandong’s Lunan Prison, submitted a marriage application to the prison, applying to marry the reporter. This fact was established in the review of dismissal decision Lu Zheng Fu Bo Zi [2026] No. 1364. In August 2025, the reporter submitted to Lunan Prison materials concerning her willingness to marry Xu Zhiyong.

On March 31, 2026, the reporter went to Lunan Prison to discuss the matter in person. The head of the prison administration section said that, after the application was submitted, it had been reported to the Shandong Provincial Prison Administration, but the administration had never replied.

In April 2026, the reporter mailed the Shandong Provincial Prison Administration an Inquiry Regarding the Progress in Processing an Inmate’s Marriage Application. Postal records show that the administration signed for it on April 18, notified the reporter on April 27 that it would be returned, and then withdrew the return on April 28. On May 15, the reporter and her attorney went to the administration to discuss the matter in person. A staff member of its Prison Administration Department said both that the matter was outside the department’s remit and that the reporter should inquire with Lunan Prison and the civil affairs department; the staff member also said that it had been handled last year and asked the reporter, “Haven’t the relevant departments in Beijing given you any feedback?”

(II) Administrative reconsideration proceedings

On June 2, the reporter submitted an administrative reconsideration application to the Shandong Provincial People’s Government by EMS regarding the Shandong Provincial Prison Administration’s failure to perform its statutory duties. It was signed for on June 3. The application materials included public reports about the Shandong prison system assisting inmates with marriage registration.

The five-day review period expired on June 10. The reconsideration authority neither issued a decision not to accept the application nor sent a notice requesting corrections. Under Article 30, paragraph 3 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law, the application was therefore deemed accepted.

On June 25, the Shandong Provincial Prison Administration submitted a Response to the Administrative Reconsideration, which stated: “As the authority executing criminal penalties, Lunan Prison’s handling of matters such as inmates’ marriage applications constitutes an act of executing criminal penalties. Our administration’s business guidance and supervision concerning this matter of executing criminal penalties are both outside the scope of administrative reconsideration.”

On July 1, the day the Regulations for the Implementation of the Administrative Reconsideration Law took effect, the reporter submitted supplemental procedural applications under the new regulations, requesting a hearing, referral to the Administrative Reconsideration Committee for an advisory opinion, and notice to a third party to participate in the reconsideration. These requests had already been included in the administrative reconsideration application submitted on June 2.

On July 6, the reporter and her attorney went to the Shandong Provincial People’s Government’s administrative reconsideration reception office to review the case file and present their views in person. The case handler verified two questions about the facts with the reporter. Regarding the three requests for a hearing, an advisory opinion, and the addition of a third party, the handler explicitly said, “All of them need to be reviewed in accordance with the law before a decision is made.” No review conclusions were given that day, and the handler did not mention that the case might fall outside the scope of administrative reconsideration. The attorney pointed out contradictions in the respondent’s account to the case handler in person.

On July 9, the reporter mailed Comments on the Respondent’s Response to the Administrative Reconsideration and an Administrative Reconsideration Opinion; they were signed for on July 10.

On July 15, the reconsideration authority issued the dismissal decision, which the reporter received on July 16.

(III) Contents of the dismissal decision

Citing Article 2, paragraph 1, and Article 30, paragraph 1, item 5 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law, as well as Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Prison Law, the dismissal decision stated: “Article 11 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law expressly enumerates the scope of administrative reconsideration. A prerequisite for a matter to fall within that scope is that it be an administrative act. In this case, the applicant’s request to the respondent to process inmate Xu [name withheld]’s marriage application concerns the education and management of inmates, which falls within the scope of prisons’ duties to execute criminal penalties. Therefore, the applicant’s administrative reconsideration application regarding how the respondent handled the inmate’s marriage application does not fall within the scope of administrative reconsideration prescribed by the Administrative Reconsideration Law.” On this basis, the application was dismissed under Article 33.

The dismissal decision also denied a hearing on the grounds that the case’s “facts are clear and the legal relationship is simple”; declined to seek an advisory opinion on the grounds that the “case facts are clear and the application of law is simple”; and refused to add the Department of Justice as a third party on the grounds that it had “no legal interest” in the case. The dismissal decision did not respond to the reporter’s substantive arguments and evidence submitted in her comments and opinion.

(IV) After the dismissal

After the dismissal, on August 24 and 25, 2026, the reporter inquired with the marriage registration authority and Lunan Prison about how to proceed. The marriage registration authority replied that both parties had to appear in person and that there was no precedent for conducting the process inside a prison. A staff member surnamed Li at Lunan Prison told the reporter orally: “If he is to leave the prison and go in person, the current rules only provide for the Ministry of Justice document and the Prison Law provisions on home visits outside prison; Xu Zhiyong clearly does not meet the conditions for leaving the prison.” The staff member refused to explain the grounds, telling the reporter to “go home and read the Prison Law yourself,” and issued no written decision. More than one year and four months have passed since the marriage application was submitted, and the reporter has received no written decision on the application from any authority.

III. The dismissal decision has no justifiable grounds

Article 35 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law provides that if an administrative reconsideration authority dismisses an application without justifiable grounds, the applicant has the right to report the matter to the higher-level administrative authority. The sole reason given in the dismissal decision is “execution of criminal penalties.” This reason has no basis in law, was invoked at the wrong procedural stage, and contradicts the reconsideration authority’s own procedural conduct.

(I) The reason for dismissal has no legal basis

The dismissal decision cites no legal provision excluding the matter from reconsideration. Its reasoning is: Article 11 positively enumerates the scope of reconsideration, and a matter must constitute an administrative act to fall within that scope; the education and management of inmates falls within prisons’ duties to execute criminal penalties; therefore, the matter is outside the scope of reconsideration. But Article 11, item 11 expressly includes cases in which a person “applies for an administrative organ to perform its statutory duties to protect personal rights, property rights, the right to education, and other lawful rights and interests, and the administrative organ refuses to perform, fails to perform in accordance with the law, or fails to respond”; the right to marital autonomy is a personality right expressly provided for in Article 110 of the Civil Code. Nor does Article 12’s list of four matters outside the scope of reconsideration include the execution of criminal penalties. The dismissal decision does not explain why this case does not fall under Article 11, item 11, nor does it cite any provision excluding the execution of criminal penalties from reconsideration.

The only provision mentioning the execution of criminal penalties was not cited in the dismissal decision and would not apply even if it had been. The only provision excluding the execution of criminal penalties from reconsideration is Article 36, item 1 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Administrative Reconsideration Law. The regulations took effect on July 1, 2026, but are not cited anywhere in the dismissal decision. Even if cited, the item’s text refers to “acts by public security, state security, criminal penalty execution, and other authorities in handling criminal cases and executing criminal penalties”: the subject does not match. Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Prison Law provides that prisons are the state’s authorities for executing criminal penalties. The respondent in this case is the Shandong Provincial Prison Administration, not a prison. The provision the dismissal decision itself cites cannot support its conclusion.

The scope has been expanded. The regulations exclude “acts of executing criminal penalties.” The dismissal decision expands this to “the scope of prisons’ duties to execute criminal penalties,” broadening a category of acts into an entire area of responsibility and bringing within it a matter involving citizens’ civil rights: assistance with marriage registration.

3. A reason without a basis cannot constitute an “explanation of reasons.” Article 33 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law requires that an application be dismissed with “an explanation of reasons.” A label with no basis in higher-level law, no citation to lower-level law, and no match between either the subject or the conduct cannot satisfy this requirement.

(II) Dismissal was used in place of a decision not to accept the application

Whether a matter falls within the scope of reconsideration is a threshold issue to be determined during the five-day review period. Article 30 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law provides that the reconsideration authority must review within five days whether an application meets the conditions set out in paragraph 1; if it does not, the authority must decide not to accept it within the review period; if the period expires without such a decision, the application is deemed accepted. The Regulations for the Implementation of the Administrative Reconsideration Law also list the execution of criminal penalties among matters under Article 36 for which an application is “not accepted”; the three grounds in Article 37 for dismissing an application after acceptance do not include the execution of criminal penalties.

Article 33 is intended for situations “discovered after acceptance.” Its text reads, “After accepting an administrative reconsideration application, [the authority] discovers that the administrative reconsideration application does not meet the provisions of Article 30, paragraph 1 of this Law.” It applies to grounds that could not be determined at the time of acceptance and only emerged during review. Whether the matter in this case fell within the scope of reconsideration was stated in the application from the outset and could be determined without any new facts.

The reconsideration authority cannot claim that it was unable to make a determination at the time. Article 31 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law provides that if application materials are incomplete or unclear, making it impossible to determine whether they meet Article 30, paragraph 1, the authority must issue written notice requesting corrections within five days. In this case, the reconsideration authority neither decided not to accept the application nor sent a notice requesting corrections.

Otherwise, “deemed accepted” would be rendered meaningless. The purpose of Article 30, paragraph 3 is to establish the legal consequence of a reconsideration authority’s failure to perform its review duty. If the authority can make no determination within five days, let the deadline expire, and then dismiss the application at the end of the proceedings on the same ground, that paragraph would have no effect.

The legislative process confirms this division of functions. In the Regulations for the Implementation of the Administrative Reconsideration Law (Draft for Public Comment), the execution of criminal penalties was listed in Article 11 as a general matter outside the scope of reconsideration; Article 40 combined provisions on non-acceptance and dismissal after acceptance. The formally promulgated regulations explicitly moved the execution of criminal penalties into Article 36, “Non-acceptance,” and listed grounds for dismissal after acceptance separately in Article 37, which does not include the execution of criminal penalties. The drafters treated the execution of criminal penalties as an issue to be determined at the acceptance threshold.

(III) The reason for dismissal contradicts the reconsideration authority’s own procedural conduct

The reconsideration authority conducted a substantive review. After the application was deemed accepted, the authority received the respondent’s written response, arranged for file review and the presentation of views in person, verified facts of the case with the reporter, accepted her comments on the evidence, and, in the dismissal decision, “established after review” the fact that the marriage application had been submitted. After completing these procedures, it then said the matter had never fallen within the scope of administrative reconsideration.

“A simple legal relationship” is inconsistent with the course of the proceedings. The dismissal decision denied a hearing on the grounds that the “facts are clear and the legal relationship is simple,” and declined to seek an advisory opinion because the “case facts are clear and the application of law is simple.” A case said to be so simple that no hearing is needed could not be classified as within or outside the scope of reconsideration during the five-day review period. Handling procedural applications through substantive determinations while also claiming to lack authority to review the case is itself inconsistent.

The review process is difficult to reconcile with the time in which the decision was issued. At the in-person meeting on July 6, the case handler explicitly said that the three procedural applications “all need to be reviewed in accordance with the law before a decision is made”; no review conclusions were given that day. The reconsideration authority received the reporter’s comments on the evidence and opinion on July 10, then issued the dismissal decision on July 15, just three working days later. If the conclusion had already been reached before July 6, it should have been communicated that day; if not, completing the review of the comments on the evidence and reaching all conclusions within three working days is difficult to reconcile with the statement that they “need to be reviewed in accordance with the law.”

No explanation was provided at any point. Article 37, item 1, and Article 61, item 1 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Administrative Reconsideration Law both require a “clarification” stage before an application is dismissed after acceptance. From acceptance through dismissal, the reconsideration authority sent no notice requesting corrections and gave no notice of any kind. At the July 6 in-person meeting, it did not say a word about the possibility that the case might fall outside the scope of reconsideration. On July 15, it issued the dismissal decision directly.

(IV) The dismissal decision evaded key facts of the case

The respondent’s second argument was not determined at all. The dismissal decision summarized the respondent’s reply as making two points: “1. The case does not fall within the scope of administrative reconsideration; 2. The respondent has performed its supervisory duties and response obligations in accordance with the law.” The decision gave a detailed explanation of the first point; as to the second, it determined neither that the duties had been performed nor that they had not been performed. “Performed in accordance with the law” thus remained in the legal document as an unreviewed assertion, with no factual or legal basis.

The respondent’s contradictory statements were not included among the facts established. At the in-person meeting on May 15, a staff member of the respondent said both that the matter was outside the respondent’s remit and that it had been handled last year, and asked the reporter, “Haven’t the relevant departments in Beijing given you any feedback?” The dismissal decision recorded this question under “The applicant states,” but the “Established after review” section only says the staff member “suggested that the applicant inquire with Lunan Prison or the civil affairs department.” The statement that it “had been handled last year” is not mentioned anywhere in the dismissal decision.

The established date does not match postal records. The dismissal decision states under “Established after review”:

“On April 27, 2026, the applicant mailed the respondent an Inquiry Regarding the Progress in Processing an Inmate’s Marriage Application.” The postal records submitted by the reporter show that the respondent signed for the inquiry on April 18, notified the reporter on April 27 that it would be returned, and then withdrew the return on April 28. The respondent’s own response also gives inconsistent receipt dates. The dismissal decision adopted the inaccurate date in the respondent’s response and did not accept the date consistent with the postal records.

Some materials and procedures are not recorded. Among the evidence listed in the dismissal decision is no public report submitted by the reporter about the Shandong prison system assisting with marriage registration. The decision records the procedural history only as “On July 9, 2026, the applicant mailed written comments to this authority”; it does not mention the July 6 in-person file review and presentation of views.

The facts of the case are not clear; determining them is precisely what a hearing should have done. The respondent said both that it had handled the matter last year and arranged for relevant departments in Beijing to provide feedback, and that the matter was outside its remit; more than a year after the marriage application was submitted, there is still no written outcome. Taken together, these circumstances give the reporter reason to suspect that the respondent may have decided “not to allow” the marriage, but never issued a written decision notifying the parties. The reporter’s attorney raised this issue in person with the reconsideration authority at the July 6 meeting. Even if the outcome was “not allowed,” the reporter had the right to receive a written decision stating the reasons and enabling her to seek legal remedies. An unwritten “not allowed” leaves the reporter unable to confirm whether a decision exists and unable to seek legal remedies. This could have been clarified in person at a hearing; the dismissal decision instead refused a hearing on the grounds that the “facts are clear.”

(V) Other problems with the dismissal decision

In the section on adding a third party, the dismissal decision states: “Neither the administrative act under review in this case nor the outcome of the administrative reconsideration at issue will have an actual impact on the rights and obligations of the Shandong Provincial Department of Justice.” It calls the matter an “administrative act under review,” but then dismisses the application on the ground that the matter does not fall within the category of administrative acts.

Article 16 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law sets the standard for a third party as having “an interest” in the matter. The dismissal decision instead uses the standard of “an actual impact on rights and obligations,” narrowing the statutory standard without explaining why.

In sum, the grounds in the dismissal decision have no basis in law, were invoked at the wrong procedural stage, contradict the reconsideration authority’s own procedural conduct, and evade key facts of the case. They do not constitute justifiable grounds as referred to in Article 35 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law.

IV. The marriage predicament and differential treatment

Pursuant to Article 8 of Several Provisions on the Procedures for Handling Administrative Reconsideration Cases by the State Council and Article 69 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China, the reporter submits suggestions to the relevant authorities to clarify the division of responsibilities and standardize processing procedures.

The reporter and Xu Zhiyong have lawfully applied to marry. Over the course of one year and four months, each authority has directed them to another authority. No authority has issued a written decision or told them where the marriage can be registered. Yet in the same prison system, for other inmates, this is routine business and has been publicly promoted as an achievement.

(I) The authorities’ replies form a closed loop

Lunan Prison says: The application was reported to the Shandong Provincial Prison Administration, but no reply was received.

The Shandong Provincial Prison Administration says: The matter is outside its remit; in the reconsideration proceedings, it also said the matter constitutes an act by Lunan Prison in executing criminal penalties.

The Shandong Provincial People’s Government found that the matter concerns the education and management of inmates, falls within the scope of prisons’ duties to execute criminal penalties, and is outside the scope of administrative reconsideration.

The marriage registration authority says: Both parties must appear in person; there is no precedent for conducting registration inside a prison; the issue of appearing in person must be coordinated with the prison.

A Lunan Prison staff member said orally that the only provision for leaving prison is home visits outside prison, that Xu Zhiyong clearly does not meet the conditions, but gave no reasons and issued no written decision. The reporter does not accept this account.

The result of this closed loop is that there is in practice no way to complete the marriage registration, yet there is no written decision that can be challenged. The right to apply formally exists, but access to a remedy is blocked at the outset.

(II) The inability to complete the marriage registration results from buck-passing, not from the rules

The marriage registration authority says both parties must appear in person and that the issue must be coordinated with the prison; a Lunan Prison staff member said orally that an inmate may leave prison only under the Provisions on Home Visits Outside Prison and Specially Authorized Leave for Inmates (Si Fa Tong [2001] No. 094), that Xu Zhiyong clearly does not meet the conditions, but refused to explain why and issued no written decision. The reporter does not accept this account.

Article 3 of those provisions limits home visits outside prison to parents, children, and spouses. If inmates could only complete marriage registration by applying under those provisions, no inmate would be able to register a marriage. But that is not the case: in 2024, Lunan Prison arranged marriage registration for 28 inmates, and the civil affairs department’s visits to the prison to provide registration services were listed as routine official business at the prison. This shows that a ready means of assisting inmates with marriage registration exists in practice; the staff member’s account contradicts the prison’s own actions.

The reporter and Xu Zhiyong have been unable to complete their marriage registration not because there is no way to do so, but because each authority has sent the matter elsewhere and none has issued a written decision.

(III) The same system routinely processes applications for other inmates

In contrast with the closed loop described above, assistance with marriage registration for inmates does exist and is routine in the Shandong prison system (see Appendix 4):

Lunan Prison’s Provisions on Management of External Official Business list “civil affairs department visits to the prison to handle inmates’ marriage registration or divorce by agreement” as a category of external official business.

Lunan Prison’s 2024 annual work summary states that the prison completed marriage registration procedures for 28 inmates.

Lunan Prison’s official WeChat account lists handling marriage procedures for eligible inmates as an achievement of its family-affection assistance work.

There are publicly reported precedents at Shandong Women’s Prison, Lubei Prison, Qizhou Prison, and Tai’an Prison, among others; assistance has also been provided at the more restrictive detention center stage.

These materials were submitted as appendices to the administrative reconsideration application, but the dismissal decision did not respond to them, and they are not included among the evidence it lists. The same circumstances are treated differently, with no explanation. This falls under the situation listed in Article 55, item 3 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China: “unequal treatment of parties in the same circumstances.”

(IV) The same matter, characterized in two different ways

In the Shandong prison system’s public communications, assistance with marriage registration for inmates is an achievement of its family-affection assistance work. In the dismissal decision, the same matter is characterized as “the education and management of inmates,” placed under “execution of criminal penalties,” and on that basis excluded from administrative reconsideration review.

These two characterizations cannot both be true. If assistance with marriage is a measure that may or may not be provided, then the reasons for not providing it should be subject to review. If it is execution of criminal penalties and not subject to review, then it should not be a favor that can be granted selectively. The reality is that for other inmates it is a publicly promoted achievement; for Xu Zhiyong and the reporter, it is neither provided nor open to review.

V. Conclusion

This report meets the circumstances provided for in Article 35 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China. The reporter lawfully submitted an administrative reconsideration application. The Shandong Provincial People’s Government did not decide within the review period not to accept it, so it was deemed accepted by law; after accepting it, the government dismissed the application on the ground that it fell outside the scope of administrative reconsideration. The dismissal decision has no justifiable grounds:

First, the dismissal decision cites no legal provision excluding this case from administrative reconsideration, and the cited basis cannot support its conclusion;

Second, whether a matter falls within the scope of reconsideration is an acceptance condition to be determined during the five-day review period. The reconsideration authority accepted the application and completed substantive review procedures before dismissing it on the same ground, using dismissal in place of a decision not to accept it;

Third, the dismissal decision refused a hearing on the grounds that the “facts are clear and the legal relationship is simple,” yet evaded the respondent’s contradictory statements and key facts of the case.

This report concerns a matter to be handled by the State Council.

The administrative reconsideration authority in this case is the Shandong Provincial People’s Government, whose higher-level administrative authority is the State Council. Under Article 35 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China and Article 4 of Several Provisions on the Procedures for Handling Administrative Reconsideration Cases by the State Council, when a citizen reports to the State Council that a provincial-level people’s government acting as an administrative reconsideration authority dismissed an application without justifiable grounds, the State Council handles the matter in accordance with the law and authorizes the State Council’s legal affairs department to process it specifically.

The reporter respectfully requests that the Shandong Provincial People’s Government be ordered to correct its decision, or that the case be directly accepted in accordance with the law.

Respectfully submitted to

The State Council of the People’s Republic of China

(Please forward to the Ministry of Justice’s Administrative Reconsideration and Response Bureau)

Reporter: Li Qiaochu

October 19, 2026

List of appendices

Copy of the reporter’s resident identity card

Copy of the Shandong Provincial People’s Government’s Decision to Dismiss the Administrative Reconsideration Application, Lu Zheng Fu Bo Zi [2026] No. 1364

Copy of the text of the Administrative Reconsideration Application (June 2, 2026) and EMS delivery record

Public reports about the Shandong prison system assisting inmates with marriage registration (originally Appendix 6 to the administrative reconsideration application, revised for this report)

Other appendices to the administrative reconsideration application, the Shandong Provincial Prison Administration’s Response to the Administrative Reconsideration, and materials the reporter submitted supplementally during reconsideration, including procedural applications, comments on the evidence, and an opinion, are all in the case file for the Shandong Provincial People’s Government’s case Lu Zheng Fu Bo Zi [2026] No. 1364. Please obtain them in accordance with the law.