SUMMARY ORDER

Nency Nency, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of a June 26, 2009, order of the BIA, affirming the undated decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Theresa Holmes-Simmons, 1 which denied her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Nency Nency, No. A099 587 585 (B.I.A. June 26, 2009), aff'g No. A099 587 585 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 24, 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). *96 The applicable standards of review are well established. Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008); Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007).

The agency did not err in its determination that the harm Nency alleged — which consists primarily of one incident when she fled from a group of native Indonesians, and two incidents when native Indonesian men groped her in public — did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir. 2006)(stating that “persecution does not encompass mere harassment”). Therefore, the agency also did not err in denying Nency relief based on her asserted well-founded fear of persecution, to the extent that her fear was based on the harm she suffered in the past. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13(b)(1); 1208.16(b)(1) (mandating that only when an applicant has established past persecution is she presumed to have a well-founded fear of persecution). Finally, because Nency does not challenge the BIA’s dispositive grounds for rejecting her “pattern or practice” claim — namely, that she failed to raise the claim before the IJ — we do not reach this issue. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008).

Because the agency did not err in concluding that Nency failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Indonesia, the agency’s denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief was not in error insofar as all three claims shared the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.