insult. Contrast Singh, 406 F.3d at 198-99 (concluding that police officers who beat Singh were at least partially motivated by his dissenting political opinions because they talked about his political activities while they beat him and threatened to kill him if he continued his activities). Nor was there any particular character to the robberies and threats that would allow the inference that the assailants’ actions were meant to convey a message consistent with hatred toward ethnic Indians. We agree with the IJ that the only motivation disclosed by these three incidents, which occurred over the span of approximately eight years, is a desire for wealth and resentment towards those with wealth. See also Patel v. Gonzales, 126 Fed.Appx. 283, 291 (6th Cir.2005) (nonprecedential opinion) (<HOLDING>). Therefore we conclude that the IJ’s decision
holding that an applicants wealth in the absence of evidence to suggest other motivations will not support a finding of persecution within the meaning of the immigration and nationality act holding that the robberies of patel a kenyan citizen of indian descent by kenyans of african descent were simply indicative of resentment towards patel due to his wealth as the immigration judge found the incidents of robbery are attributable to class tensions and patels affluence rather than to persecution holding that private racial discrimination and harassment of a kenyan citizen of indian descent does not establish persecution holding that plaintiff who alleged discrimination on the basis of his mexicanamerican descent had stated a valid claim under section 1981 holding by implication that plaintiff a brownskinned person of east indian descent had stated a proper claim under section 1981