under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Guang Ti Ye, No. A099 927 013 (B.I.A. May 26, 2010), aff'g No. A099 927 013 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 4, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Although Ye claimed that he suffered past persecution, he did not allege that he was physically harmed or mistreated by family planning officials. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 340-41 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, as the BIA concluded, Ye was not
holding that to constitute persecution the harm must rise above mere harassment holding that to constitute persecution harm must be more than harassment holding that harm must be sufficiently severe and rise above mere harassment holding that to constitute persecution the harm must be sufficiently severe rising above mere harassment holding that the harm must rise above mere harassment