SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner, Ivan Veekovic, a native of the former Yugoslavia and citizen of Croatia, seeks review of a May 4, 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the October 12, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Terry A. Bain, denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ivan Veckovic, No. A099 320 129 (B.I.A. May 4, 2012), aff'g No. A099 320 129 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 12, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 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). Because Veekovic does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief, we have reviewed only the denial of asylum and withholding of removal.

Veekovic argues that the IJ erred by finding that he failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his Serbian ethnicity. Although Veekovic was assaulted, verbally harassed, and subjected to property damage, we find no error in the IJ’s determination that the harm Veekovic endured did not rise to the level of persecution because he was not detained during these incidents, and the harm he suffered was relatively minor. See Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820, 822 (2d Cir. 2011) (holding that a beating which occurred pri- or to detention, “required no formal medical attention and had no lasting physical effect” did not rise to the level of persecution).

*173 To demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution, an asylum applicant must show either: (1) that he suffered past persecution; or (2) a fear of future persecution because he “would be singled out individually for persecution” or because there exists in his country “a pattern or practice ... of persecution of a group of persons similarly situated to [him].” 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(2), 1208.16(b)(2). The IJ reasonably found that Veckovic failed to establish an objectively reasonable basis for fearing future persecution in Croatia.

The State Department report described widespread discrimination against ethnic Serbs, including some incidents of violence. However, as the IJ found, there was no evidence that the Croatian government was unwilling or unable to protect Vecko-vic, given: (1) Veckovic’s testimony that the police helped to investigate the incident in which he was attacked; and (2) the report’s indication that Croatian authorities had identified, arrested, and prosecuted other individuals who perpetrated acts of violence against ethnic Serbs. Accordingly, the IJ did not err in finding that Veckovic failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. See id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).

Having failed to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim, Veckovic was necessarily unable to meet the higher standard required to succeed on a claim for withholding of removal. See Gomez v. INS, 947 F.2d 660, 665 (2d Cir. 1991).

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