evidence. See Butt v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 430, 433 (3d Cir.2005). We will deny Tio’s petition for review because he is not entitled to withholding of removal. Despite his arguments to the contrary, Tio failed to prove that he suffered past persecution. In part, he described discrimination on the basis of his ethnicity and religion. Such discrimination may be morally reprehensible, but it is not persecution. See Chen v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 221, 233 n. 20 (3d Cir.2004) (noting that courts routinely deny immigration relief to persons “who suffer racial discrimination that falls short of ‘persecution’ ”). Tio also experienced disturbing attacks; however, the attacks were isolated criminal acts that do not rise to the level of persecution. Cf. Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 536 (3d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Tio himself conceded that two of the attacks
holding that isolated criminal attacks do not constitute persecution holding that two isolated criminal acts perpetrated by unknown assailants which resulted only in the theft of some personal property and a minor injury are not sufficiently severe to be considered persecution holding that two acts were not sufficiently similar when one consisted of verbal threats and other resulted in physical violence holding that isolated minor acts or occasional episodes do not warrant relief holding that to constitute persecution the harm must be sufficiently severe rising above mere harassment