
    Noel Antonio GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-75102.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 19, 2010.
    
      Douglas Grant Ingraham, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    Brianne Whelan Cohen, Trial, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Paul Cygnarowicz, Trial, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Noel Antonio Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the agency’s legal determinations and we review for substantial evidence factual findings. Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition.

Gutierrez contends that he established a clear probability of future persecution based solely on having suffered past persecution. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Gutierrez failed to establish that the harm he suffered rose to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (harassment and one beating unconnected with any ¡particular threat did not compel finding of past persecution); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found this incident sufficient to establish past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder would be compelled to do so.”). Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that Gutierrez has a clear probability of future harm. See Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1184-85. Because Gutierrrez does not otherwise challenge the agency’s finding, his withholding of removal claim fails. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 938 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     