though she had received a “condolence note” from the FARC regarding her own death); Sepulveda v. United States Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir.2005) (concluding that “menacing phone calls and threats” to an applicant and her family, combined with a bombing at her workplace, were not ‘persecution.’). Nor did Prado’s experiences with the local police amount to persecution. Prado testified that he was arrested once on an issue unrelated to his sexuality, and while in custody he was insulted and threatened based on his sexuality, but not physically abused. Another time, he was insulted and struck by a police officer outside a nightclub. Though the officers’ behavior was demeaning and frightening, it was not severe enough to be called persecution. See Zheng, 451 F.3d at 1290 (<HOLDING>); Djonda v. United States Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d
holding that even if a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave the police station to which morris had been taken for questioning and where he had been for more than four hours and even if morris had thus been detained the restraint was not the equiva lent of a formal arrest and morris was not in custody for miranda purposes when he made an incriminating admission holding that a chinese applicant was not persecuted though he had been arrested detained for five days and forced to stand in the sun and watch reeducation videos holding that a detained defendants consent to search his car was voluntary even though the police did not tell him he was free to leave holding no past persecution where alien had twice been detained for twoday periods during which he was beaten and interrogated whose parents home had been searched whose work locker had been repeatedly broken into and who had been assigned poor work tasks denied bonuses and conscripted into the army where he was constantly harassed holding that an applicant who had been detained for 36 hours and suffered a beating by the police but without serious injury had not been persecuted