
    QIN WANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-61048
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 14, 2007.
    William K. Kiang, Law Offices of Kiang & Kiang, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, John Clifford Cunningham, Luis Enrique Perez, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Kenneth L. Pasquarell, Acting District Director, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, San Antonio, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    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-eontrol 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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (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 to show the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812. 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 Serv., 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. 
      
       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.
     