United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 14, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-61048
Summary Calendar
QIN WANG,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A97 351 577)
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Qin Wang, a native citizen of the People’s Republic of China
challenges a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA),
which reversed the decision of the immigration judge and denied her
asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA determined Wang
experienced neither past persecution nor a well-founded fear of
future persecution based on China’s coercive-population-control
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
policy. Wang claims these rulings are not supported by substantial
evidence.
“The substantial evidence standard requires only that the
Board’s conclusion be based upon the evidence presented and be
substantially reasonable.” Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d
341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations and citations
omitted). To obtain reversal of the BIA’s determination, a
petitioner must show that the evidence presented in the
administrative context was “so compelling that no reasonable fact
finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution”. INS
v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992).
Concerning her past-persecution contention, Wang has not shown
the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s. See id.
Wang was not forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization, and
unfulfilled threats of sterilization do not constitute persecution
warranting relief from removal. Cf. Yang v. United States Att’y
General, 418 F.3d 1198, 1202-03 (11th Cir. 2005); Ci Pan v. United
States Att’y General, 449 F.3d 408, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2006). The
monetary fine for having her first child without permission does
not rise to the level of persecution, see Yang, 418 F.3d at 1202-
1203; nor does her five to six hour detention, cf. Huang v. United
States Att’y General, 429 F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (11th Cir. 2005).
Concerning Wang’s future-persecution claim, which is based on
the birth of her second child in the United States, she also fails
2
to show the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s.
See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84. In the light of, inter
alia, United States Department of State reports on asylum and human
rights in China, no evidence demonstrates any policy implementing
population control for children born outside of China. Cf. Wang v.
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Servs., 437 F.3d 276, 278 (2d
Cir. 2006). Further, these reports indicate family-planning
policies in China rely on monetary penalties, rather than physical
coercion, such as forced sterilization.
Wang does not contend she is entitled to withholding of
removal. Therefore, she has waived this claim. See Thuri v.
Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004).
PETITION DENIED
3