of persecution without more information about the incident. This court defines persecution as punishment or the infliction of harm administered on account of a protected ground. Irasoc, 522 F.3d at 730; see Dandan v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 567, 573 (7th Cir.2004). Mere harassment is insufficient to establish persecution; a petitioner alleging persecution in the form of physical abuse must be able to point to significant harm. See Tarraf v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 525, 535 (7th Cir.2007); Tesfu v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 477, 481 (7th Cir.2003). And while “[cjonduet can rise to the level of persecution without being life-threatening,” we consider the frequency and severity of the harm alleged when reviewing a determination that the petitioner did not suffer persecution. Tarraf, 495 F.3d at 535 2006) (<HOLDING>); Prela v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 515, 518 (7th
holding that evidence of multiple interrogations and 24hour detention did not compel finding of persecution holding that a minor beating even in conjunction with threats did not compel a finding of persecution holding that evidence of kidnapping at gunpoint interrogation and beating did not compel finding of persecution holding that evidence of isolated incident in which government officials beat petitioner and struck him with a brick resulting in seven stitches did not compel finding of persecution holding that minor abuse during brief detention did not compel finding of past persecution