LISHUANG ZHENG v. WHITAKER (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Lishuang Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 29, 2016, BIA decision that affirmed the May 22, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lishuang Zheng, No. A088 372 034 (B.I.A. Sept. 29, 2016), aff’g No. A088 372 034 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 22, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under these circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).

Zheng applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, asserting that she suffered past persecution when family planning officials threatened to arrest her in order to compel her to use an intrauterine device (“IUD”) and that she fears forced sterilization based on the birth of her second child in the United States in violation of China’s population control program.

“We have emphasized that persecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 70-75 (2d Cir. 2011). Being forced to use an IUD is not per se persecution, Xia Fan Huang v. Holder, 591 F.3d 124, 129-30 (2d Cir. 2010). In any event, Zheng submitted to insertion of an IUD at her mother-in-law’s request, and not because of being forced to do so. The BIA did not err in concluding that Zheng failed to show past persecution.

We do not consider the agency’s denial of relief based on Zheng’s fear of persecution based on the birth of her second child in the United States because our prior decision evaluating her individualized evidence and concluding that her claim was largely foreclosed by Jian Hui Shao remains the law of the case. See Johnson v. Holder, 564 F.3d 95, 99 (2d Cir. 2009) (“The law of the case doctrine commands that when a court has ruled on an issue, that decision should generally be adhered to by that court in subsequent stages in the same case unless cogent and compelling reasons militate otherwise.” (internal quotation marks omitted) ).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.