claim for withholding of removal, the record supports the agency’s determination that his alleged experiences did not amount to past persecution. See Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 216, 222 (BIA 1985) (defining persecution as “a threat to the life or freedom of, or the infliction of suffering or harm upon, those who differ in a way regarded as offensive,” inflicted by the government of a country or by persons or an organization that the government is unable or unwilling to control); Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223, 226 n. 3 (2d Cir.2006) (clarifying that a valid past persecution claim can be based on harm other than threats to life or freedom, including non-life-threatening violence and physical abuse); Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Here, although Watuseke’s experiences suggest
holding that harm must be sufficiently severe and rise above mere harassment holding that harm must be sufficiently severe rising above mere harassment to constitute persecution holding that to constitute persecution the harm must be sufficiently severe rising above mere harassment holding that to constitute persecution the harm must rise above mere harassment holding that to constitute persecution harm must be more than harassment