The Beijing Judicial Office's Notices have raised legal disputes.

The National Uniform Legal Professional Qualification Examination (NDLE) still does not receive a legal vocational qualification. On 2 November, the Human Rights Advocate, A.J., released a letter from her wife, Xu Yiang, to Beijing City Judicial Bureau, informing her that the administration had confirmed that she had passed the examination and that there were no criminal penalties at the time of registration, but continued to refuse to qualify on the grounds that she had subsequently been punished for the criminal offence.The book of the book that was released by the rest of Vincent's life.This month-long dispute has been pushed to a clear legal question: is the administrative body to be reviewed in the light of the situation at the time of the examination or the situation at the time of the application for the qualification?

The National Uniform Legal Professional Qualification Examination was held and passed in

1. In April 2023, she was taken away by the police from her husband, Vincent, while preparing to attend the European Union Mission in China; On 29 October 2024, she was sentenced to one year and nine months' imprisonment for “incitement to overthrow the State's power”, and released in January
2. The case was also committed to prison by the rest of Vincent and released in April
3. The experience of both individuals facing criminal proceedings for human rights activities has given greater significance to the administrative dispute over a professional qualification.

One examination, two times: the Judicial Service must explain the reasons for the application of the law

On 14 August 2026, Xu Yan applied to the Beijing City Judicial Service for legal professional qualifications, which issued a circular on inadmissibility of applications for legal professional qualifications, citing article 10, paragraph 1, of the National Uniform Legal Vocational Qualifications Act, which states that “no person may be admitted to the National Uniform Legal Professional Qualifications Examination for intentional offences, if he has been criminally punished”. The problem is that when she was enrolled in the examination in 2022, there was no established criminal penalty under this article, and that she was punished after the examination.

This does not mean that subsequent eligibility can be automatically determined by the status of the registration alone; Article 18 of the scheme also provides for conditions for eligibility. It is for this reason that it is the duty of the Judicial Service to make it clear that it examines the eligibility, validity of merit or the legal conditions for granting professional qualifications. The expression “the person is currently criminally punished” is directly “the person was not allowed to register in the past” and does not respond to the distinction between the two review times. An administrative decision cannot replace a full legal article application analysis with a conclusion.

The new Notice remains open for dispute after the administrative review

(a) The application for administrative review of the decision to dismiss the inadmissibility decision was submitted by Xu Yan and the author to the Ministry of Justice on 28 September; The remaining authors also filed complaints with the relevant State bodies. The letter of communication received in November reconfirmed the passing of the test without addressing the time logic she had pointed out. If the administrative authorities concerned insist on refusal, they should submit specific legal provisions and the time of their application, indicate how the review procedure is handled and provide, in accordance with the law, a decision-making instrument that allows for continued relief.

The case reveals the reality that the consequences of a criminal sentence may continue beyond the completion of the sentence through the system of professional access. For the beauty of having served the penalty, access to legal career development cannot be indefinitely blocked by non-transparent administrative grounds. The Beijing Municipal Judicial Bureau and the Ministry of Justice should respond to her application on an open and reviewable legal basis, rather than allowing defenders to continue to suffer occupational exclusions without clear boundaries after serving their sentences.