[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-15443

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A074-855-742

FENG CHAI YANG, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(August 7, 2014)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-15443 Date Filed: 08/07/2014 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Feng Chai Yang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, 

petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for 

asylum.

1

 In 2009, we denied Yang’s previous petition for review in part on the 

ground that Yang did not suffer past persecution based on “other resistance to a 

coercive population control program,” but remanded the case to the BIA to address 

Yang’s motion for remand. Yang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 345 Fed. App’x. 424 (11th Cir. 

2009) (unpublished). The BIA granted the motion, and the IJ issued a new order 

denying Yang’s application for asylum. The BIA affirmed. 

Yang presents two arguments in support of her petitioner for review. First, 

the BIA erred in concluding that she failed to meet her burden of showing that she 

suffered past persecution on account of her “other resistance” to China’s 

population control program and in relying on Matter of M-F-W- & L-G-, 24 I. & N. 

Dec. 633 (BIA 2008), which held that an asylum applicant claiming persecution 

for acts of “other resistance” must show a nexus between the persecution and the 

“other resistance,” in reaching its conclusion. Second, the BIA, in not explaining 

why her intrauterine device (“IUD”) insertions did not constitute “aggravating 

 1 The IJ also denied Yang’s applications for withholding of removal and relief under the 

United Nations Convention Against Torture. However, Yang abandoned those claims on appeal. 

See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (concluding that 

issues on appeal are deemed abandoned when an appellant fails to provide argument on an 

issue). Yang also abandoned any argument she had regarding the BIA’s determination that she 

did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See id.

Case: 13-15443 Date Filed: 08/07/2014 Page: 2 of 5 
3

circumstances,” failed adequately to consider the aggregate harm she suffered as 

result of her acts of resistance. 

We lack jurisdiction to entertain Yang’s first argument to the extent that it is 

based on Matter of M-F-W- & L-G because Yang failed to exhaust the argument 

administratively. See Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), § 242(d)(1), 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 

(11th Cir. 2006) (holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider issues that have not 

been raised before the BIA). Yang’s petition for review is therefore dismissed with 

respect to the Matter of M-F-W- & L-G argument.

The remainder of Yang’s first argument is foreclosed by the “law-of-thecase” doctrine. That doctrine holds that an appellate court’s factual findings and 

legal conclusions are “generally binding in all subsequent proceedings in the same 

case in the trial court or on a later appeal.” Mega Life & Health Ins. Co. v. 

Pieniozek, 585 F.3d 1399, 1405 (11th Cir. 2009). The purpose of the doctrine is to 

“bring[ ] an end to litigation, protect[ ] against agitation of settled issues, and 

assur[e] that lower courts obey appellate orders.” This That And The Other Gift 

And Tobacco, Inc. v. Cobb Cnty., Ga., 439 F.3d 1275, 1283 (11th Cir. 2006). 

Yang, which was decided on the same facts presented to the BIA, explicitly 

found that “Yang was not persecuted for resistance to a coercive population control 

program.” Yang, 345 Fed. App’x at 427. We explained that her opposition to the 

Case: 13-15443 Date Filed: 08/07/2014 Page: 3 of 5 
4

injections was because of her anesthesia allergy and not her opposition to the 

population control program and that she did not resist the two IUDs, and the 

insertion of the two IUDs did not constitute persecution, “because they were 

intended to implement the population control program and not to punish Yang for 

any resistance to that program.” Id. We found, moreover, that she “failed to offer 

any evidence that she will be persecuted for [having a child in the United States or 

removing her IUD in the United States].” Id.

The issues Yang presented to the BIA on appeal were precisely those we 

considered and ruled on in Yang. Like the court in Yang, the BIA found that Yang 

opposed the experimental injection and sterilization procedure because she was 

allergic to anesthesia and not because of the population control program; that she 

was not persecuted for removing the first IUD and having a second child in China

(acts that did constitute “other resistance”); and that she failed to show that she 

would be persecuted for removing the IUD or having a child in the United States. 

The law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply if: “(1) since the prior decision, 

‘new and substantially different evidence is produced, or there has been a change 

in the controlling authority’; or (2) ‘the prior decision was clearly erroneous and 

would result in a manifest injustice.’” Id. These exceptions are inapplicable here 

because Yang presented no “new or substantially different evidence” on remand. 

Case: 13-15443 Date Filed: 08/07/2014 Page: 4 of 5 
5

Nor did she establish a change in the controlling authority or that our decision in 

Yang was clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust. 

The law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply to Yang’s second argument, 

which is that the BIA failed to provide a reasoned consideration of her appeal 

because it did not explain the “aggravating circumstances” surrounding her forced 

IUD insertions. We find no merit in the argument. The record shows that the BIA 

considered the issues Yang raised on appeal and rendered a decision sufficient to 

enable this court to conduct meaningful appellate review. Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th Cir. 2006). The BIA was not required to address 

specifically each point the petitioner raised or each piece of evidence she cited. Id.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

Case: 13-15443 Date Filed: 08/07/2014 Page: 5 of 5