decision) (concluding that evidence of intimidation from an Islamist Group without government response was harassment and did not rise to the level of persecution); see also Ujkic v. Ashcroft, 107 Fed.Appx. 560, 562 (6th Cir.2004) (unpublished decision). Furthermore, in most instances, neither hostility between competing ethnic groups nor race discrimination constitutes persecution. See Ouda, 324 F.3d at 450; Mikhailevitch, 146 F.3d at 390; see also Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir.1998) (requiring petitioner to show that “mistreatment she suffered was directed personally toward her, and that it was substantially more grievous in kind or degree than the general manifestation of hostility between competing ethnic and religious groups in Fiji”); Ghaly, 58 F.3d at 1431 (<HOLDING>); Bastanipour v. INS, 980 F.2d 1129, 1133 (7th
holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment holding that neither injunctive nor declaratory relief is available to private litigants under the fdcpa holding that while widespread violence against a protected group by private individuals and public officials may constitute persecution widespread discrimination that may include persecution of some individuals does not compel such a finding holding that where private discrimination is neither condoned by the state nor the prevailing social norm it does not constitute persecution holding that personal disputes do not constitute persecution