of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision 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) (2006); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009). Gurung argues that he suffered past persecution at the hands of Maoists in Nepal who threatened to kill him when he refused their demands for money. However, as Gurung testified, the Maoists did not physically harm him or financially harm his tourist businesses, which independently suffered due to a decline in tourism. The agency therefore reasonably found that the Maoists’ unfulfilled threats did not constitute persecution. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 342 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Gui Ci Pan v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 449 F.3d
holding that to constitute persecution harm must be more than harassment holding that to constitute persecution the harm must rise above mere harassment holding that harm must be sufficiently severe rising above mere harassment to constitute persecution holding that harm must be sufficiently severe and rise above mere harassment holding that the harm must rise above mere harassment