Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 247 (3d Cir.2003) (en banc)). The BIA correctly affirmed the IJ’s alternative finding that, even if Bansie’s testimony were credible, he had not established that he was eligible for withholding of removal. Bansie claimed that he was targeted by Jamaican gangs for persecution, including extortion and kidnapping, due to his father’s wealth. The IJ concluded that the incidents that Bansie allegedly endured were the result of general violence or crime, and were motivated by the gangs’ desire to illegally obtain money. The BIA agreed with the IJ’s conclusion, noting that the fact that Bansie might be targeted in schemes to extort money from his father does not qualify as persecution. See Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, 494-95 (3d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Bansie also relied on the same fear of harm
holding that a purely financial exaction does not constitute a taking holding that personal disputes do not constitute persecution holding that violence that does not stem from particularized animosity but rather from a financial incentive does not constitute persecution holding that payments from a tortfeasors insurer are not from a collateral source because they stem directly from the tortfeasor holding that probation does not constitute a sentence