
    Sanije MUCA, Vulnet Muca, Engjell Muca, Rilind Muca, Milot Muca, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-1133-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 16, 2010.
    
      Sokol Braha, New York, NY, for Petitioners.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Francis W., Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel; Jacob A. Bashyrov, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: WALKER, B.D. PARKER, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioners, all citizens of Macedonia, seek review of a February 24, 2009 order of the BIA, affirming the June 4, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge Robert D. Weisel, denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Muca, Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/581/582/583/584 (B.I.A. Feb. 24, 2009), affg Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/581/582/583/584 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 4, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

The agency properly found that petitioners failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, as required for a grant of asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). The IJ provided a reasoned and detailed analysis of the record and determined that, while the evidence indicated that ethnic Albanians experience “discrimination and harassment” in Macedonia, the record did not support a finding that they would face persecution. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir.2006) (holding that harm must be sufficiently severe and rise above “mere harassment”); see also Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir.1993) (“[Pjersecution does not encompass all treatment that our society regards as unfair, unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional.”). With respect to petitioners’ arguments regarding the potential harm faced by military recruits and the disabled, we are not compelled to reach a conclusion contrary to that of the agency. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir.2007). Ultimately, the agency reasonably found that the record did not support a finding that petitioners’ fear was objectively reasonable. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that a fear is not objectively reasonable if it lacks “solid support” in the record and is merely “speculative at best”).

Insofar as petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof with respect to asylum, they necessarily failed to meet the higher burden of proof required to prevail on their claim for withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006). In addition, because petitioners failed to challenge the denial of their CAT claim either before the BIA or this Court, we deem any such argument abandoned. See Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 723 n. 6 (2d Cir.2007).

Finally, we find no error in the BIA’s refusal to enjoin petitioners’ removal based on their allegation that the government delayed placing them in removal proceedings. Rather than showing that the government engaged in “affirmative misconduct,” the record reveals that petitioners played a role in any delay by pursuing visas for which they were ineligible. See Ajdin v. BCIS, 437 F.3d 261, 266 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Rojas-Reyes v. INS, 235 F.3d 115, 126 (2d Cir.2000). To the extent petitioners’ brief can be read to request that this Court enjoin their removal, we decline that request.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).  