PER CURIAM: ^[*]

Longru Wei and Yibiao Liao, natives and citizens of China, petition this court for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying their asylum application. Wei contends that she was persecuted in China when family planning officials forced her to have three abortions and that she would be involuntarily sterilized if she were to return to China with her second child, *2 Case: 16-60744 Document: 00514245038 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2017

No. 16-60744

who was born while she was in the United States. Wei’s son, Yibiao, seeks asylum as a derivative applicant.

Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s denial of relief, we will review both decisions. See Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). We review factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, and legal questions de novo. Orellana-Monson v. Holder , 685 F.3d 511, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2012).

An alien seeking asylum must demonstrate past persecution or a well- founded fear of persecution because of one of five protected grounds including political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A), (B)(i). A forced abortion or an involuntary sterilization qualifies as persecution on account of political opinion under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). In this case, the IJ’s and BIA’s denial of Wei’s claim for asylum is supported by substantial evidence. The IJ and BIA provided numerous specific, cogent reasons in support of the IJ’s adverse credibility decision against Wei. See Zhang v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). The evidence does not compel a conclusion that Wei demonstrated past persecution through her claim of having three abortions while in China or that she demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution based on her alleged fear of involuntary sterilization or economic penalties if she were to return to China with her two children. See Zhu v. Gonzales , 493 F.3d 588, 597-98 (5th Cir. 2007); Zhao v. Gonzales , 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005).

The petition for review is DENIED.

2

[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.