Chinese Spouse's Application for Residency in Taiwan Denied Due to Past Employment with CCP Party, Government, or Military Unit
Taiwan's Ministry of Interior review committee has rejected a Chinese national, Ms. Cao's, application for residency, citing her past employment with state-owned companies in Xinxiang City, Henan Province, China, which were deemed to be CCP party, government, or military-related units. Ms. Cao's appeal, arguing that her past work was trivial and denying residency violated human rights as she has a child in Taiwan, was recently dismissed by the Executive Yuan.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: May 11, 2026 at 18:41
- 🔍 Collected: May 11, 2026 at 19:02 (21 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: May 11, 2026 at 19:54 (52 min after Collected)
CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY
(Central News Agency Reporter Gao Huajian, Taipei, May 11) A Chinese national, Ms. Cao, applied for residency in Taiwan, but the Ministry of Interior's review committee determined that Ms. Cao had previously worked for a state-owned sole proprietorship in Xinxiang City, Henan Province, China, which belonged to a CCP party, government, or military unit, and therefore did not grant permission. Ms. Cao filed an appeal, stating that she was merely doing odd jobs at the time and that denying her residency, especially since she has a child in Taiwan, constituted a human rights violation. However, the Executive Yuan recently dismissed her appeal.
The Executive Yuan's recently announced appeal decision stated that Ms. Cao, a Chinese national, was granted permission to reside in Taiwan in February 2015 and obtained a long-term residency permit, valid until July 19 this year.
The decision indicated that Ms. Cao applied for residency in Taiwan in August last year. After a residency review committee meeting held by the Ministry of Interior in October last year, it was resolved that Ms. Cao's application would not be granted because she had served as a specialist at the "Xinxiang City Railway Bureau, Henan Province," a state-owned sole proprietorship of Xinxiang City, and as a director at the "Nanqiao Office of Weibin District Street Office, Xinxiang City, Henan Province." These positions, according to regulations such as the "Permit Regulations for Relatives Residing or Settling in the Taiwan Area by People of Mainland China," led to the decision of non-permission, and she is prohibited from reapplying for three years.
Ms. Cao, however, argued that she married Mr. Hong, a Taiwanese spouse, in 1998 and gave birth to a son in 2001. During the entry review, she had truthfully disclosed that her relevant positions were assigned to her upon graduation in 1989 and involved only menial tasks such as running errands and purchasing office supplies, and she had successfully obtained a residency permit to Taiwan.
Ms. Cao also stated that her positions were not among the Mainland China agencies or organizations listed in the "Explanation of Annunciated Matters for 'Prohibiting People, Corporations, Organizations, or Other Institutions in the Taiwan Area from Serving in or Becoming Members of Party, Military, Administrative, or Politically Affiliated Agencies (Organizations) or Groups in the Mainland Area,'" an attachment to the Mainland Affairs Council's announcement in 2004. She argued that the original disposition was an arbitrary exercise of discretion and violated the principle of equal attention to advantages and disadvantages under the Administrative Procedure Act. Furthermore, having a son in Taiwan, she contended that denying her residency would constitute a human rights violation and breach of human ethics.
The Ministry of Interior, the original disposing authority, stated that the Mainland Affairs Council's 2004 announcement attachment was an administrative interpretation concerning the scope of application of Article 33, Paragraph 2 of the "Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area," but this provision applies to people in the Taiwan area and does not involve people from Mainland China.
The Ministry of Interior pointed out that the Mainland Affairs Council's reply in September 2025 stated that the "Xinxiang City Railway Bureau, Henan Province" is a state-owned sole proprietorship established by the Xinxiang City People's Government, and the "Nanqiao Office of Weibin District Street Office, Xinxiang City, Henan Province" is a street office under the jurisdiction of Weibin District, Xinxiang City, Henan Province. Both are considered CCP party, government, or military units, and therefore the review committee's decision not to grant permission was not illegal.
The Executive Yuan's appeal review committee deliberated that, according to Ms. Cao's entry in the experience section of the "Application Form for Residency or Settlement in the Taiwan Area by People of Mainland China" when she applied for dependent residency in 1998, she served as a specialist in the office of the "Xinxiang City Railway Bureau, Henan Province" from 1991 to 1996 and as a director at the "Nanqiao Office of Weibin District Street Office, Xinxiang City, Henan Province" from 2001 to 2006.
The review committee stated that Ms. Cao's past positions clearly belonged to CCP party, government, or military units. The Ministry of Interior's residency review committee resolved that Ms. Cao had not truthfully declared her relevant experience when applying for residency, and that she was suspected of abnormal cross-Strait activities, therefore the original disposition was not improper.
The review committee concluded that this case applies to Article 34, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the "Permit Regulations for Residency and Settlement," which states "those who currently (or have previously) held positions in or were members of party, military, administrative, or politically affiliated agencies (organizations) or groups in the Mainland Area." Furthermore, Ms. Cao currently holds a long-term residency permit and can apply for an extension to the National Immigration Agency under the Ministry of Interior in accordance with the regulations, which does not affect her rights to family reunion with her child. Therefore, the original disposition should be maintained. (Editor: Lin Hsing-meng) 2026/05/11
(Central News Agency Reporter Gao Huajian, Taipei, May 11) A Chinese national, Ms. Cao, applied for residency in Taiwan, but the Ministry of Interior's review committee determined that Ms. Cao had previously worked for a state-owned sole proprietorship in Xinxiang City, Henan Province, China, which belonged to a CCP party, government, or military unit, and therefore did not grant permission. Ms. Cao filed an appeal, stating that she was merely doing odd jobs at the time and that denying her residency, especially since she has a child in Taiwan, constituted a human rights violation. However, the Executive Yuan recently dismissed her appeal.
The Executive Yuan's recently announced appeal decision stated that Ms. Cao, a Chinese national, was granted permission to reside in Taiwan in February 2015 and obtained a long-term residency permit, valid until July 19 this year.
The decision indicated that Ms. Cao applied for residency in Taiwan in August last year. After a residency review committee meeting held by the Ministry of Interior in October last year, it was resolved that Ms. Cao's application would not be granted because she had served as a specialist at the "Xinxiang City Railway Bureau, Henan Province," a state-owned sole proprietorship of Xinxiang City, and as a director at the "Nanqiao Office of Weibin District Street Office, Xinxiang City, Henan Province." These positions, according to regulations such as the "Permit Regulations for Relatives Residing or Settling in the Taiwan Area by People of Mainland China," led to the decision of non-permission, and she is prohibited from reapplying for three years.
Ms. Cao, however, argued that she married Mr. Hong, a Taiwanese spouse, in 1998 and gave birth to a son in 2001. During the entry review, she had truthfully disclosed that her relevant positions were assigned to her upon graduation in 1989 and involved only menial tasks such as running errands and purchasing office supplies, and she had successfully obtained a residency permit to Taiwan.
Ms. Cao also stated that her positions were not among the Mainland China agencies or organizations listed in the "Explanation of Annunciated Matters for 'Prohibiting People, Corporations, Organizations, or Other Institutions in the Taiwan Area from Serving in or Becoming Members of Party, Military, Administrative, or Politically Affiliated Agencies (Organizations) or Groups in the Mainland Area,'" an attachment to the Mainland Affairs Council's announcement in 2004. She argued that the original disposition was an arbitrary exercise of discretion and violated the principle of equal attention to advantages and disadvantages under the Administrative Procedure Act. Furthermore, having a son in Taiwan, she contended that denying her residency would constitute a human rights violation and breach of human ethics.
The Ministry of Interior, the original disposing authority, stated that the Mainland Affairs Council's 2004 announcement attachment was an administrative interpretation concerning the scope of application of Article 33, Paragraph 2 of the "Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area," but this provision applies to people in the Taiwan area and does not involve people from Mainland China.
The Ministry of Interior pointed out that the Mainland Affairs Council's reply in September 2025 stated that the "Xinxiang City Railway Bureau, Henan Province" is a state-owned sole proprietorship established by the Xinxiang City People's Government, and the "Nanqiao Office of Weibin District Street Office, Xinxiang City, Henan Province" is a street office under the jurisdiction of Weibin District, Xinxiang City, Henan Province. Both are considered CCP party, government, or military units, and therefore the review committee's decision not to grant permission was not illegal.
The Executive Yuan's appeal review committee deliberated that, according to Ms. Cao's entry in the experience section of the "Application Form for Residency or Settlement in the Taiwan Area by People of Mainland China" when she applied for dependent residency in 1998, she served as a specialist in the office of the "Xinxiang City Railway Bureau, Henan Province" from 1991 to 1996 and as a director at the "Nanqiao Office of Weibin District Street Office, Xinxiang City, Henan Province" from 2001 to 2006.
The review committee stated that Ms. Cao's past positions clearly belonged to CCP party, government, or military units. The Ministry of Interior's residency review committee resolved that Ms. Cao had not truthfully declared her relevant experience when applying for residency, and that she was suspected of abnormal cross-Strait activities, therefore the original disposition was not improper.
The review committee concluded that this case applies to Article 34, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the "Permit Regulations for Residency and Settlement," which states "those who currently (or have previously) held positions in or were members of party, military, administrative, or politically affiliated agencies (organizations) or groups in the Mainland Area." Furthermore, Ms. Cao currently holds a long-term residency permit and can apply for an extension to the National Immigration Agency under the Ministry of Interior in accordance with the regulations, which does not affect her rights to family reunion with her child. Therefore, the original disposition should be maintained. (Editor: Lin Hsing-meng) 2026/05/11