
    Muhamad Uref NOOR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71968.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009 
    
    Filed Jan. 8, 2010.
    Robert G. Ryan, Law Offices of Eugene C. Wong, Inc., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Shahrzad Baghai, OIL, Richard Zanfar-dino, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Muhamad Uref Noor, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s denial of the application for withholding of removal, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the two encounters Noor suffered in 1994 with the Islamic Defender’s Front did not rise to the level of past persecution on account of one of the protected grounds. See Faruk v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir.2004) (evidence of harassment and attacks on interracial and interreligious couple insufficient to show past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Noor failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir.2009) (withholding requires objectively reasonable fear that persecution upon return is more likely than not). Accordingly, Norr’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Noor’s contention that the agency did not adequately consider the evidence is belied by the record.

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