argue that the harassment that they suffered when younger and the threats to their lives from Mr. Sibuea’s mother’s family constitute past persecution. We agree with the IJ that these incidents do not rise to the level of persecution. “Although persecution is not defined in the INA, we have held that a finding of persecution requires the infliction of suffering or harm upon those who differ (in race, religion, or political opinion) in a way regarded as offensive and must entail more than just restrictions or threats to life and liberty.” [Wiransane, 366 F.3d at 893] (internal quotation omitted). Compare Tulengkey, 425 F.3d at 1281 (finding no past persecution where alien was robbed, fondled, and suffered a minor head injury); Kapcia v. INS, 944 F.2d 702, 704-05, 708 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); and Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 536 (3d
holding that alien who had received numerous death threats and whose colleagues were murdered by the military had not proven past persecution 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 where a witness had been convicted seventeen years earlier but had been given probation and had not been confined the date of the conviction controlled holding that petitioner was entitled to cat relief where he had been tortured in the past for speaking out about war country conditions had deteriorated since he fled army had continued to look for him and had engaged in reprisals against his family 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