surveillance, beatings, or torture” might cross the line from harassment to persecution. Mitev v. INS, 67 F.3d 1325, 1330 (7th Cir.1995). There is no question that Ms. Ciorba has endured some harassment at the hands of local Romanian police. However, Ms. Ciorba never was arrested, jailed, physically assaulted or threatened. Additionally, she did not suffer extreme economic deprivation; Ms. Ciorba resided in her family’s two-bedroom home and lived off of the funds provided by her family in the United States during the five years that she remained in Romania after their departure. In short, Ms. Ciorba’s experiences in Romania are similar to those that this court has recognized as constituting harassment, not persecution. See, e.g., Yadegar-Sargis v. INS, 297 F.3d 596, 602 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Mousa v. INS, 223 F.3d 425, 430 (7th
holding that stubborn failure to hire attorney after being told disadvantages constituted waiver of counsel at trial holding that for general safety purposes an officer may routinely order the driver of a lawfully stopped vehicle to exit the vehicle because when the vehicle is already stopped the slight additional intrusion associated with being directed to exit the car can only be described as de minimis holding that being stopped by police being interrogated and being forced to the back of ration lines constituted harassment holding interrogation not custodial where suspect was given a choice of being interviewed in police station or elsewhere holding that custodial interrogation by police must not occur prior to suspect being informed of his or her right to counsel and against selfincrimination