not”) of future persecution on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group, or political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Tariq v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 650, 656 (7th Cir.2007). If that individual can show past persecution, as Ahodikpe attempted to do here, he is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of future persecution. See Irasoc v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 727, 729-30 (7th Cir.2008). Ahodikpe concedes that the two earliest incidents were “brief encounter[s]” outside of the scope of persecution. He argues that the third incident amounted to persecution, and he emphasizes the severi ty and duration of his detention at the passport office. He notes for the court that he was beaten in a hidden room and held until nightfall. Yet that episode still falls sho 005) (<HOLDING>). Thus, without more information, Ahodikpe’s
holding that evidence of multiple interrogations and 24hour detention did not compel finding of persecution holding that a four to six hour detention during which the alien was hit in the stomach and kicked from behind did not compel a finding of persecution holding that a minor beating even in conjunction with threats did not compel a finding of persecution holding that minor abuse during brief detention did not compel finding of past persecution holding that evidence of kidnapping at gunpoint interrogation and beating did not compel finding of persecution