Opinion ID: 798620
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Forcible IUD Insertion

Text: However, the agency’s determination that Petitioner Ye did not establish that she suffered past persecution based on the alleged forced insertion of an intrauterine device (“IUD”), is remanded in light of our decision in Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64 (2d Cir 2011). To establish past persecution based on the forcible insertion of an IUD, an asylum applicant must establish that: (1) the IUD was inserted because of her resistance to a family planning policy, or another protected ground, rather than as a routine part of the population control program; and (2) there were “aggravating circumstances.” Xia Fan Huang v. Holder, 591 F.3d 124, 128-30 (2d Cir. 2010) (according Chevron deference to the BIA’s decision in Matter of M-F-W- & L-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 633 (BIA 2008)). In Mei Fun Wong, we remanded for the agency to articulate standards for determining whether an asylum applicant has established aggravating circumstances and to clarify how it determines whether the applicant was 5 subjected to the forcible insertion of an IUD on account of their resistance to China’s family planning policy, or other protected grounds. Mei Fun Wong, 633 F.3d at 71-81. For the reasons discussed in Mei Fun Wong, we cannot evaluate the BIA’s determination that Ye did not establish that she suffered past persecution when she was subjected to the involuntary insertion of an IUD. See id. Ye asserted that she was “persecuted on account of the coercive family p[l]anning policy” because she “was forced to wear an IUD” which “caused cramps and bleeding and irregular menstrual cycles.” In support of her claim, she testified that the Chinese government had “used force to drag [her] for IUD insertion,” and that the Chinese government had refused to remove the IUD after she reported the cramps and bleeding. Moreover, the BIA has yet to clarify whether it “categorically concludes that nexus cannot be established by evidence that a person who resisted a population control policy was compelled to submit to a practice, such as IUD insertion, routinely performed in furtherance of that policy.” Id. at 79. And it has not yet addressed whether “aggravating circumstances designed to compel submission . . . [can] demonstrate the requisite nexus between that 6 persecution and an applicant’s opposition to the state’s population control policy.” Id. at 80. Thus, we remand this case to the BIA for further proceedings in light of Mei Fun Wong. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED, in part, and GRANTED, in part, the order of removal is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for proceedings consistent with this decision. Petitioner’s motion for a stay of removal is DISMISSED as moot. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 7