evidence in determining whether the Maoists’ actions rose to the level of persecution. The IJ erred in relying on the absence of permanent physical harm to find that Petitioner was not persecuted by the Maoists. Nothing in the pertinent statutes or relevant precedents suggests that an applicant must be permanently maimed in order to demonstrate past persecution. The record shows that the beating Petitioner suffered resulted in injuries serious enough to require medical care, with the hospital documents indicating that Petitioner was rendered semi-unconscious in the attack. Regardless of whether Petitioner was permanently injured in this attack, it does not seem to be a minor incident that can be brushed off as insig nificant. Cf. Witjaksono v. Holder, 573 F.3d 968, 977 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, Petitioner presented both
holding that harassment or discrimination does not rise to the level of persecution under the ina unless it is accompanied by physical punishment infliction of harm or significant deprivation of liberty holding that physical assaults did not rise to the level of persecution where they did not requirfe medical attention holding that alien was teased bothered and harassed based on her religious beliefs but that it did not rise to the level of persecution and that fear of future persecution was too speculative holding any improper delegation did not rise to level of plain error holding that charging fees for medical services did not violate the eighth amendment where prisoner did not allege denial of medical care