Li Qiaochu: Where has the procedure for Xu Zhiyong and me to apply for marriage reached? The Shandong Provincial Government rejected my administrative reconsideration

Where has the procedure for Xu Zhiyong and me to apply for marriage reached? The Shandong Provincial Government rejected my administrative reconsiderationPublished 2026/07/24

On July 16, 2026, I received the Decision on Rejecting the Application for Administrative Reconsideration from the Administrative Reconsideration Office of the Shandong Provincial Government (Lu Zheng Fu Rejection [2026] No. 1364). The decision was dated July 15. With this, the administrative reconsideration I initiated over the Shandong Provincial Prison Administration's failure to process the marriage application has, for the time being, come to an end.

Is this the execution of a criminal sentence, or a civil right?

They did not answer what I was really asking—whether the Shandong Provincial Prison Administration had processed the marriage application that a prison had submitted more than a year ago, what the outcome was, and whether this constituted an omission. Instead, they classified the matter as “the education and management of prisoners, falling within the prison's execution of criminal sentences,” and therefore held that it “does not constitute an administrative act” and did not meet Article 30, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law.

What they used to support this classification was Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Prison Law: “A prison is the state organ for executing criminal sentences.” That statement is quite straightforward, isn't it? But the respondent in my case has always been the Shandong Provincial Prison Administration, which is the administrative authority overseeing Lunan Prison.

Neither the prison's account nor the structure of the new Prison Law supports the idea that this is the execution of a criminal sentence

What surprised me was that even Lunan Prison itself, which directly detains Xu Zhiyong and directly executes his sentence, does not make this distinction in that way. On March 31, the head of Lunan Prison's Prison Administration Section told me in person that after Xu Zhiyong's marriage application was submitted last year, the Prison Administration Section had reported it to the Prison Administration; the Prison Administration, however, had never replied, so the prison had been unable to respond to me. At the meeting, I also showed him data on marriage-registration cases from Lunan Prison's publicly reported 2024 cases. The section head said that publicity about marriage registration for prisoners was part of the prison system's policy of helping prisoners maintain family ties, and was managed by the Education Section, so he was not very familiar with the data in the report.

It was the prison's Prison Administration Section that accepted and reported the marriage application; the staff member from the Prison Administration who communicated with us at the meeting was also from its Prison Administration Division. The marriage application itself was never treated as “education and management.” So on what basis did the reconsideration authority—which does not execute criminal sentences and does not supervise or guide their execution—classify the marriage matter as “education and management”?

Moreover, the new Prison Law, which will take effect on November 1 this year, places “execution of criminal sentences” and “prison administration” in separate chapters. Even if this matter is regarded as internal prison management, under the classification in the new law itself, it falls under “prison administration.” The new law also adds “respecting and protecting human rights” to its general provisions. The law's own structure and direction do not support forcing a marriage application into the category of “execution of criminal sentences.”

Under the decision's reasoning, wouldn't the prison system's assistance with marriage registration become a bargaining chip or reward for rehabilitation?

Marriage is a basic right protected by the Constitution and the Civil Code. Xu Zhiyong and I were not deprived of the right to marry by our judgments, so we have the right to marry in accordance with the law. The reason our marriage matter cannot proceed without assistance from the prison is not that we are asking for “extralegal mercy,” but that the Marriage Registration Regulation requires both parties to appear in person at the registration authority, while he is deprived of his personal liberty and cannot go there on his own. For a person who has not been deprived of this right but cannot exercise it independently, the prison has a legal duty to provide assistance.

The decision of the Administrative Reconsideration Office of the Shandong Provincial Government specifically mentioned “education and management,” making the marriage matter part of “the execution of his sentence.” How should I understand this?—Is it merely using family affection to make prisoners “cooperate with management and focus on rehabilitation”? If this logic holds, whether marriage registration is carried out would be determined by the needs of rehabilitation; in essence, it would be a favor selectively granted to some people, rather than a right that must be protected under the law.

Conversely, if assistance with marriage registration is intended to protect a prisoner's civil rights, it necessarily requires cooperation with departments outside the system, such as civil affairs authorities—something that itself negates the necessary characteristic of “execution of criminal sentences” as an internal, unilateral process completed within the system.

Case evidence: Prisoners who had appealed their convictions were also actively assisted by prisons in completing marriage registration

When I searched nationwide last year for cases of marriage registration by prisoners, I also noted that prisoners who were still in appeal proceedings or criminal petition proceedings had been actively assisted by prisons in completing marriage registration. The new Prison Law soon to be implemented also expressly protects prisoners' rights to petition and lodge complaints in accordance with the law. These cases clearly show that in prison practice, the core criteria for reviewing a marriage application are the parties' consent and compliance with statutory conditions; whether a person has filed an appeal does not affect the exercise of basic rights that have not been taken away. This itself also negates the necessary characteristic of “execution of criminal sentences” as the implementation of the punitive content of a judgment.

The case of Gou in Gaoyou, Jiangsu (officially released by the Supreme People's Procuratorate)

After Gou was sentenced to punishment by a court of first instance for a crime, he formally appealed the judgment. While awaiting the outcome of the second-instance proceedings, he and his girlfriend jointly submitted a marriage application. After reviewing the law, the local detention center and the procuratorate stationed there confirmed that Chinese law contains no explicit provision prohibiting criminals from marrying. Ultimately, before the second instance ruled to dismiss the appeal and before he entered prison to serve his sentence, they assisted the two in completing marriage registration.

The case of He in Yibin, Sichuan (reported by official Sichuan media)

He was sentenced at first instance to four years and six months in prison for intentional injury and appealed the judgment. During the appeal, he and his girlfriend submitted an application for marriage registration to the detention center. After the local public security, court and civil affairs departments consulted with one another, they approved He to complete marriage registration on the condition that it would not affect the litigation proceedings. This was the first reported case in the area of a detainee awaiting appeal completing marriage registration.

This has never been a problem that can be dismissed by having it both ways

If assistance with marriage registration is “the implementation of an undivested civil right,” the Prison Administration has a duty to process and respond to it in accordance with the law after the prison reports it. It cannot be classified as the execution of a criminal sentence under “education and management” and used to block my reconsideration application. If, for prisoners, marriage registration is a “tool for rehabilitation,” and whether it is carried out is determined by whether it meets the needs of rehabilitation, then this is no longer a matter of legal standards and basic rights. If our marriage does not fit this narrative of publicity and promotion, no matter how we seek it in accordance with the law, it will not be processed.

After making me go through every stage, they tell me “this matter was never within the scope of administration” from the beginning. How could they not have seen that earlier?

On June 3, receipt of the reconsideration application was acknowledged; on June 10, it was deemed accepted in accordance with the law—yet within five working days, they could not see that my matter did not even meet the threshold conditions.

On June 25, the Shandong Provincial Prison Administration served its response. Of the 19 pages of materials, 13 consisted of legal documents I had submitted.

Contradictory responses that undermine each other

The mailing date on the body of the response was April 27, while the evidence index changed it to April 25. The response to the on-site communication in mid-May was added on June 25, with no content at all.

Are three working days enough?

On July 6, my lawyer and I went to the site to review the case file and present our views in person. Regarding my three applications—for a hearing, for consultation opinions and to add a third party—the case handler explicitly said, “All of them require examination in accordance with the law before a decision can be made.” On that day, there was not a single examination conclusion.

On July 10, they received my evidence-objection opinions and administrative reconsideration opinions. On July 15, after only three working days, the Shandong Administrative Reconsideration Office issued its decision rejecting the reconsideration application, and all three procedural applications were also rejected. Was the efficiency of three working days really that high? Or had the results already been determined before July 6? If so, why was I not told a single conclusion that day?

Could they not determine even during the five-day review period whether this was an “administrative act”?

What puzzled me even more was the reason for the rejection. After treating the application as accepted, they waited until I had completed reviewing the file, attending the on-site hearing of opinions, signing for my evidence-objection statement and administrative reconsideration opinion, and having my three procedural requests examined, then at the final step said, pursuant to Article 33, that my matter had never fallen within the scope of administrative reconsideration from the beginning. The matters listed in Article 30, Paragraph 1 are the threshold questions to be reviewed within five working days after an application is submitted, including whether it should be accepted. If the five-day review period could not determine even whether this was an “administrative act,” how could they discover it only after such a long time following acceptance? I thought the only explanation was that the case must be somewhat complicated and therefore required time to examine and assess.

A provincial authority says both “we have no power to examine this” and “we examined it; it was simple and clear”

Yet immediately afterward, when rejecting my applications for a hearing and consultation opinions, they said the reason was that “the facts are clear and the legal relationship is simple”—clear and simple, yet difficult to discover? When I looked again at their rejection of my application to add a third party, they referred to “the administrative act examined in this case...” So is it an administrative act or not?

I was someone who could not even get through the door, yet they successively answered the three procedural questions that I would have been qualified to raise only after entering the room. At the end, with a “to sum up,” they built three non-load-bearing structures into a load-bearing wall, returned to the foundation-laying stage, and rejected the reconsideration under Article 33. The sole basis was the initial claim that it was “outside the scope of matters we accept.”

Why was it “rejected after acceptance” rather than “not accepted”?

I kept wondering: why was it “rejected after acceptance” rather than “not accepted”? A decision not to accept must be made within the five-working-day review period, and the reasons must be stated in writing—it has a clear point in time. They bypassed that point and chose to shut the door on me with a rejection at the last moment. The door is now closed, but if this really is “the execution of a criminal sentence,” they have not said where I should go next.

From mailing to delivery of the decision, I as the recipient could not find any record of it

The decision was left by the delivery worker at my front door on the evening of July 16. I received no notification, and there was no record of it in my EMS account. The documents mailed to me by the reconsideration office last year had complete, traceable tracking records. I called 11183 and learned that the recipient's mobile-phone number registered in the system was not mine, so the sender information visible when I entered the mail number was marked with asterisks. As for the phone number registered in the system, EMS said it could not disclose it. But the recipient information handwritten on the envelope I received was my mobile-phone number. Just thinking about it is exhausting on behalf of the sending unit...

From the issuance of a decision to its delivery, I as the recipient should have had a record that I could check myself and present to others. If a dispute really arises over actual delivery, will I still be responsible for proving it?

What are they really trying to avoid?

The core question need not be answered

First, they avoided making a legal characterization. My reconsideration application concerned the failure to respond and the failure to act. In the section of the rejection decision headed “This authority holds,” they merely classified my matter as execution of a criminal sentence and declared that it fell outside the scope of reconsideration. Thus, they changed the issue from “whether to determine that there was an omission” to “there is no need to answer any characterization question.”

Making the Prison Administration's contradictory facts invisible

When repeating the respondent's response, they compressed it into two brief sentences: “1. It does not fall within the scope of accepted cases; 2. It has performed its supervisory duties and duty to respond in accordance with the law.” But when the Prison Administration communicated with us on site, it said both “we handled it last year” and “this matter is outside the scope of our business.” The claim that most clearly exposed the contradiction did not appear at all. They did not endorse the contradictory statements; instead, they removed the contradiction from the legal documents, ensuring that the facts never surfaced.

They also did not provide the lengthy theoretical argumentation for the Prison Administration's claim that it had “performed its duty to respond in accordance with the law,” as they did for the first claim. They quietly skipped over it and never made a determination on it—neither saying that the duty had been performed nor that it had not. Thus, “the duty has been performed” became a record that remained in the legal document without examination, requiring no factual basis or legal provision to support it.

They could not even copy the “facts ascertained” correctly

The decision states under “The facts ascertained after examination”: “On April 27, 2026, the applicant mailed an Inquiry Letter to the respondent.” I clearly submitted all the postal records: the Prison Administration Division first signed for a letter that it claimed was unrelated to the authority's “business scope” on April 18, notified me that it was being returned on April 27, and then withdrew the return on April 28, handling it repeatedly. In comparison, the respondent's own response contained contradictory dates of receipt. Yet the reconsideration office copied the date—which even the respondent had not copied accurately—into the decision as an “ascertained fact.” The actual date, fully consistent with the postal records, disappeared instead.

The decision neither correctly determined nor incorrectly determined the Prison Administration's more-than-year-long blank in processing and its self-contradictions—it merely allowed that blank not to be written into a legal document or examined by anyone.

How did the case handler behave on site?

“All of this is in your materials, and I have read it all”

At the site on July 6, the case handler interrupted my statement twice, saying the same thing each time: “All of this is in your materials, and I have read it all carefully.” He asked me to speak only about matters not mentioned in the materials. During the process of verifying the case, he referred to specific content in my materials, including the statement “we handled it last year.” In other words, he was aware of this statement that day.

Seeing him say this, I listed all the documents I had submitted and the key evidence in a table in the administrative reconsideration opinion I submitted on July 9—EMS proof of receipt, the record of the Prison Administration's on-site communication in May, and public reports on the Shandong prison system's assistance with marriage registration. I thought that since he said he had received everything and read everything carefully, he would examine and respond to each item. As a result, the key evidence on this list was not mentioned in a single word in the rejection decision.

So when he said “I have read it all,” did he mean that he had read it but would not verify or examine it and refused to respond? Or did he think I was talking too much and want to shut me down at the meeting?

The reasons for requesting a hearing were sufficient? Then reject the hearing

That day, I also submitted my evidence-objection opinions regarding the respondent's response, pointing out one by one where the Prison Administration's response could not stand, as well as its contradictions with the facts and with its own statements at different times. Taken together, these contradictions pointed to the question that the lawyer also raised directly with the reconsideration office.

The Prison Administration said on the one hand that “it handled it last year and had arranged for the relevant Beijing departments to provide feedback,” while saying on the other hand that it was “outside the scope of its business.” Yet more than a year had passed since the application was submitted, and there had never been a written result. Taken together, these abnormalities gave us reason to suspect that the Prison Administration had in fact already made a decision not to allow it, but had simply never put that decision in writing and notified the parties concerned.

Even if the answer really was “not allowed,” I had the right to receive a written decision stating the reasons and allowing me to seek legal remedies, rather than having the decision remain forever in an oral state that could leave no trace and could not be formally examined. A “not allowed” decision that refuses to be put on paper leaves me unable to confirm whether the decision exists or seek legal remedies. Whether this suspicion was valid could have been clarified in person at a hearing, but the hearing was rejected as well.

What exactly was the purpose of those two repeatedly asked questions?

When hearing my views on July 6, the case handler verified two matters with me. These were also the focus of the Prison Administration's on-site communication in May. I included my responses to both questions in the administrative reconsideration opinion I submitted on July 9.

“Did no Beijing department in fact ever notify you?”—Was this an implicit threat?

What the case handler proactively verified was actually the weakest factual link in the Prison Administration's defense that it had “performed its duty to respond.” Its entire claim of having performed its duties was that it had “informed [me] of the relevant circumstances on site,” and “having the relevant Beijing department notify me” was important substantive content. If that notification had never occurred, its claimed performance of duties was empty talk that had not been fulfilled, and the case handler's question was also testing the truthfulness of the respondent's response. I also pointed out that the reference to the “relevant Beijing department” had no basis in the current legal procedures, which itself demonstrated that the Prison Administration had failed to perform its duties in accordance with the law.

This mysterious “Beijing department” was mentioned at the Prison Administration on May 15 and was repeatedly questioned at the reconsideration office on July 6. Yet whenever I asked in return, “Which department exactly, and under what procedure would it notify me?” they each completely evaded the question, and they have never been willing to put it into any legal document. Why does an application procedure entirely within Shandong repeatedly invoke a “Beijing department” that cannot be identified, refuses to be named and is never put in writing? Are the Prison Administration and the reconsideration office secretly threatening me through channels outside the law? Do they mean that if I return to Shandong to report the difficulties surrounding the marriage application, my personal safety will be at risk? I have lived in fear for more than a year and can only speak publicly about my concerns.

“Did the civil affairs bureau ever say that prisoners must appear in person?”—Pushing me back toward the civil affairs department again

On July 6, the case handler again pressed me about a telephone call made around August 2025, for which there was no recording and which could not be recreated. In the entire case file, this happens to be the only matter whose existence I cannot prove. My reconsideration case rests on one statement: both parties must appear in person for marriage registration, and Xu Zhiyong cannot appear in person on his own, so the prison system's assistance is irreplaceable; the Prison Administration's failure to act therefore directly causes our rights to be lost. Thus, if they can say “you could actually go to the civil affairs bureau and handle it yourself,” then they have no duty and I have no legal interest.

I know very clearly that my telephone call with the civil affairs bureau does not fall within any burden of proof. It is neither evidence of the legality of the respondent's conduct nor evidence supporting my request that it perform its duties. Yet this question was asked twice by two levels of authority nearly two months apart and with almost identical detail. I felt that the case handler was not verifying the matter with me; he seemed to be looking for a solution that could loosen the claim that “the assistance is irreplaceable.”

There is a test for determining the purpose that does not require guessing. Article 45 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law clearly gives the reconsideration authority the power to investigate and collect evidence. If it wanted to know the civil affairs department's position on handling the matter, it could have found out that very day with a phone call or a letter. It did not do so, and instead chose to repeatedly question me about an unrecorded phone call from a year earlier. Thus, “ascertaining the facts” may not have been the case handler's purpose. If the case handler accepted my response and supplementary evidence, he should not have rejected the application; if he did not accept them, why did he not investigate and verify them?

In my subsequent opinion, I added the specific provisions—the Civil Code, the Marriage Registration Regulation, and the 2025 national marriage-registration coordination document issued by the Shandong Provincial Department of Civil Affairs and two other departments—all clearly state in black and white that both parties must “personally appear together” to marry. After I submitted the answer, it was not adopted, refuted or verified; it simply did not exist. For an administrative-assistance matter initiated upon application, the authority should know its own procedures, yet it required the applicant first to produce a workable solution and then used that solution to find fault, reversing the allocation of duties and shifting the burden of proof. I did indeed do the work they should have done, only to be questioned and have loopholes picked on the grounds that the work was incomplete. This is the difficulty an ordinary citizen faces in trying to exercise basic civil rights.

The body presiding over this reconsideration, the body administering the Prison Administration, and the third party I sought to add are all the same

Ignoring the official website materials I cited and declaring itself to have no legal interest

Among the main responsibilities published on the Shandong Provincial Department of Justice's own official website, Item 5 states that it is “responsible for handling administrative reconsideration and litigation-response cases for the provincial government,” while Item 14 states that it “administers the Provincial Prison Administration.” In other words, the reconsideration presided over by the Shandong Provincial Department of Justice determined that the Shandong Provincial Department of Justice had no interest in a case concerning whether its own subordinate authority had failed to act.

My Application to Notify a Third Party to Participate in Administrative Reconsideration, submitted on July 1, also included a document containing the prison's specific implementation rules for notary offices entering prisons to provide notarization services for prisoners. The Department of Justice had formulated rules for this matter 10 years ago, and had also specified how prisons should cooperate. Yet when rejecting the application, it said that the Shandong Provincial Department of Justice had no legally relevant interest in this case.

The official websites of both the Shandong Provincial Prison Administration and the Ministry of Justice contain public reports on their work: relying on initiatives such as the “Yellow Ribbon Assistance and Education” campaign, the Shandong prison system works with judicial, civil affairs, social security and education departments, as well as prisoners' family members, to provide assistance and education and coordinate solutions to prisoners' family affairs. So if helping a prisoner complete marriage registration does not fall within this scope, I find it difficult to see what does.

The case handler indicated at the meeting that he had looked at all these evidentiary documents. Yet the rejection decision said only: it would not have an actual impact on the rights and obligations of the Department of Justice, and therefore it had no legally relevant interest.

Declaring itself “objective and impartial”

In addition, my Application for Consultation Opinions had already stated that the body responsible for handling the provincial government's reconsideration cases and the body administering the Prison Administration were both the Shandong Provincial Department of Justice. Objectively, factors existed that could affect the impartiality of the review, and therefore external, independent consultation opinions should be introduced. After I pointed out this concern, the Shandong Provincial Department of Justice, which handled the provincial government's reconsideration cases, personally rejected my application to “introduce external opinions” on the grounds that “the legal relationship is simple.”

Final words

Regarding the administrative reconsideration proceeding concerning the Shandong Provincial Prison Administration's failure to act on our marriage application, from June 2 to July 16, my lawyer and I went through it fully and carefully, and recorded and presented the entire true process. In seeking the right to marry, we still have many detours to experience fully, and will still be disappointed by much illegality and absurdity, but I will not despair—because the right that Zhiyong and I want is so simple and so legitimate. Two people who love each other but are forced apart are doing everything they can to become each other's legal family. The defense of this basic right is courageous, clear, and aboveboard.

Over the years, I have never exaggerated any of the struggles for rights or the costs paid for them. Everything I have done has had the same substance as “a steamed bun”; there has been no grand reason behind it.

At one point, I felt that even a criminal suspect should be fed, so I worked to solve the problem of food and basic sustenance. Later, I felt that a person detained in a detention center or prison should have the right to meet with a lawyer and communicate, so I worked to solve this basic-rights issue. When I encountered the same predicament, I continued to believe that regardless of our circumstances or identity, we should respect the facts and truth, be treated according to the law and regulations throughout the entire procedure, and retain our basic human dignity.

My persistence over the right to marry comes from knowing that even within high walls, people should be treated as people. Departments with corresponding duties should strictly protect and implement basic rights that have not been taken away by a judgment. The law is not merely an abstract set of principles and a system; it affects every specific life. This trust in the rule of law and justice must be safeguarded by every law-enforcement official through their own legal principles and social conscience. The reality of the rule of law needs to be seen. Compared with grand systems of discourse, the work of those who implement the law should do more to make the law trusted by every ordinary citizen. If I have any “selfish” motive, it is that I do not want always to be flattened into the extra, even less visible hardship between “girlfriend/fiancée” and “wife.” Over these years, I have borne everything in love and responsibility, yet in legal terms I have been stripped of every status that could support those burdens.

Therefore, seeking the right to marry is the firm choice I have made for basic rights, for myself and for beautiful love. I am grateful to fate, which through one choice after another has allowed me to verify again and again who I am—how perilous it is, and how fortunate I am.