corrupt business acts and siphon funds from sales. Petitioner refused. Because he refused to accede to Mr. Moreno’s demands, petitioner was arrested and detained eight times by the police. The police told him that he had to acquiesce to Mr. Moreno’s wishes if he wanted to stay alive and he was repeatedly tortured. When petitioner tried ien was eligible for asylum where he acted against corruption by rescuing two maids from the Saudi royal family even though he did not expose the corruption to the public). Petitioner suffered severe retaliation for refusing to comply with Mr. Moreno’s criminal demands, including being arrested eight times by the police and tortured during his detentions, which constitutes past persecution. See Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1197, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). Thus, petitioner has demonstrated nexus on
holding that two arrests and repeated beatings constituted persecution holding that two beatings which were four years apart lasted only a few hours each and did not result in serious injury did not constitute persecution holding that detention of five or six days on account of imputed political opinion without beatings tortures or threats did not rise to the level of persecution holding that indian applicants testimony of beatings and threats by hindu radicals is too vague speculative and insubstantial to establish either past or future persecution holding that beatings vandalism threats and humiliation in the aggregate  rise to the level of persecution as contemplated by the act