evidence of persecution or harassment of any kind. Only in 2004, when the land dispute arose, did Musabwasoni exhibit any hostility toward Petitioners. Even once this conflict began, the record contains just a few remarks by Petitioners’ alleged persecutors referencing their Burundian background, always in the context of telling Petitioners to return to Burundi so that Musabwasoni could take the land. Given these facts, it was reasonable for the BIA to conclude that even if Reverien’s remarks suggested that Petitioners’ persecution might be based on their Burundian background, the eight years of prior peace between Petitioners and Musabwasoni dispelled any inference that such animus was a significant reason for their conflict. Cf. Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 535 (3d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Amanfi v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 719, 724 (3d
holding that the parties relationship was not lengthy enough to establish an ordinary course of dealings as the first transaction between the parties was subject to the preference action holding that robbers statement and gestures instilled greater fear than necessary to carry out the robbery holding that the use of an ethnic slur during an otherwise ordinary robbery was not enough to show that the robbers acted because of their victims ethnicity holding that jury may consider victims mental capacity in determining whether defendant acted with victims knowledge and consent holding that where the states definition of robbery has on its face the element of use or threatened use of physical force a robbery conviction is properly used as a predicate under acca