16-3559 Zheng v. Whitaker BIA Lamb, IJ A088 372 034

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 1st day of February, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LISHUANG ZHENG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3559 17 NAC 18 19 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Mike P. Gao, Flushing, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Keith I. 28 McManus, Assistant Director; John 29 B. Holt, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United

06152016-10 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

7 is DENIED.

8 Petitioner Lishuang Zheng, a native and citizen of the

9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 29,

10 2016, BIA decision that affirmed the May 22, 2015, decision

11 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of

12 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

13 (“CAT”). In re Lishuang Zheng, No. A088 372 034 (B.I.A.

14 Sept. 29, 2016), aff’g No. A088 372 034 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City

15 May 22, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

16 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

17 Under these circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s

18 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”

19 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,

(2d

20 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well

21 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

,

22 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).

23 Zheng applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and

24 CAT relief, asserting that she suffered past persecution when

2 07102018-8 1 family planning officials threatened to arrest her in order

2 to compel her to use an intrauterine device (“IUD”) and that

3 she fears forced sterilization based on the birth of her

4 second child in the United States in violation of China’s

5 population control program.

6 “We have emphasized that persecution is an extreme

7 concept that does not include every sort of treatment our

8 society regards as offensive.” Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633

9

(2d Cir. 2011). Being forced to use an IUD

10 is not per se persecution, Xia Fan Huang v. Holder.

(2d Cir. 2010). In any event, Zheng submitted

12 to insertion of an IUD at her mother-in-law’s request, and

13 not because of being forced to do so. The BIA did not err

14 in concluding that Zheng failed to show past persecution.

15 We do not consider the agency’s denial of relief based

16 on Zheng’s fear of persecution based on the birth of her

17 second child in the United States because our prior decision

18 evaluating her individualized evidence and concluding that

19 her claim was largely foreclosed by Jian Hui Shao remains the

20 law of the case. See Johnson v. Holder,

(2d

21 Cir. 2009) (“The law of the case doctrine commands that when

22 a court has ruled on an issue, that decision should generally

23 be adhered to by that court in subsequent stages in the same 3 07102018-8 1 case unless cogent and compelling reasons militate

2 otherwise.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

4 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion

5 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.

6 FOR THE COURT: 7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 8 Clerk of Court

4 07102018-8