see also Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 723 (2d Cir.2007). The BIA also reasonably concluded that even assuming Wang demonstrated “other resistance,” he failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of that resistance. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). Although Wang claimed that he suffered past persecution, he did not allege that he was physically harmed or mistreated by family planning officials. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 340-41 (2d Cir.2006). The BIA reasonably found that Wang did not suffer past persecution based on his claim that he was forced into hiding because it is unclear from the record that the Chinese government knew that Wang went into hiding or that it was necessary that he do so. See id. at 341 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Wang failed to demonstrate past
holding that harassment threats and one beating did not constitute persecution holding that the difference between harassment and persecution is necessarily one of degree that must be decided on a casebycase basis holding that to constitute persecution harm must be more than harassment holding that the persecution of falun gong practitioners constitutes persecution both on the basis of spiritual and religious belief and on the basis of political opinion holding that to constitute persecution the harm must rise above mere harassment