
    MU LAN LIU, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-60758
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 12, 2009.
    Donglai Yang, Law Offices of Donglai Yang, Marrero, LA, for Petitioner.
    Don George Scroggin, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Blair T. O’Connor, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Mu Lan Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s decision to deny withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Liu argues that she fears future persecution, and thus is entitled to withholding of removal, because the birth of her second child places her in violation of China’s population control'policy. Liu has failed to show that the Changle City family planning handbook and administrative opinion she adduced were more persuasive than documents produced by the United States State Department regarding the situation in China. See Rojas v. INS, 937 F.2d 186, 190 n. 1 (5th Cir.1991). Nor do the documents provide specific evidence regarding the probability of future persecution of Liu on the basis of her foreign-born children. See Matter of S-Y-G, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 255 (BIA 2007). Liu’s own equivocal testimony and that of her aunt-by-marriage were insufficient to show that Liu would be subject to either physical force or other enforcement measures “of sufficient severity that it amounts to persecution.” See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 600 (5th Cir.2007).

Liu’s evidence was not “ ‘so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’ ” See Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir.1994) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)). Liu has consequently not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s rejection of her claims. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.1996).

Liu’s petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     