Hannalla

*715 MEMORANDUM **

1. The record doesn’t compel a finding of past persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13 (b). Persecution is an “extreme concept,” Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) (quoting Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc)), and Hannalla suffered no more than minor injuries while in government custody and in his altercation with a tenant. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir.2006) (finding no past persecution where petitioner was similarly beaten while detained by the government). The enforcement of laws of general applicability doesn’t amount to persecution, Abedini v. INS, 971 F.2d 188, 191 (9th Cir.1992), even if these laws are designed to protect a particular religion. The requirement that Hannalla report to the authorities once a week is onerous but does not amount to persecution, especially as Hannalla hasn’t shown that he was singled out for such treatment because of his religious beliefs. It follows that issuance of a warrant for Hannalla’s failure to comply with the lawful reporting requirement also is not persecution.

2. Nor does the record compel a finding that petitioners have a well-founded fear of future…