and political antisemitism in Belarus. Diab v. Ashcroft, 397 F.3d 35, 40 (1st Cir.2005) (“Should the applicant be found not entirely credible, corroborating evidence, such as country condition reports, may be used to bolster an applicant’s credibility.” (emphasis added)); cf. Yan Chen, 417 F.3d 268. Also troubling is the IJ’s apparent (and erroneous) technique of addressing the severity of each event in isolation, without considering its cumulative significance. See Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.1998) (“A single isolated incident may not rise to the level of persecution, [but] the cumulative effect of several incidents may constitute persecution.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original)); In re O-Z & I-Z-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 23, 25-26 (BIA 1998) (<HOLDING>). We note that the need to view events
holding that two arrests and repeated beatings constituted persecution holding that harassment threats and one beating did not constitute persecution holding that beatings vandalism threats and humiliation in the aggregate  rise to the level of persecution as contemplated by the act holding that indian applicants testimony of beatings and threats by hindu radicals is too vague speculative and insubstantial to establish either past or future persecution holding that detention of five or six days on account of imputed political opinion without beatings tortures or threats did not rise to the level of persecution