*1 Before W OOD Chief Judge , F LAUM E ASTERBROOK , Circuit Judges .

F LAUM Circuit Judge Hernel Silais, Haitian citizen opposition political party member, petitioned United States asylum, withholding removal, relief under Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Immigration Judge, later Board Immigration Appeals (collec tively, “Agency”), denied petition. do same. *2 ‐

I. Background On February 5, 2011, Silais arrived in United States without an immigrant visa other valid entry document. The Department Homeland Security (“DHS”) charged Si lais inadmissibility under U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i). In response, conceded inadmissibility, based lack valid documents, but requested asylum, withholding removal, protection under CAT.

A. Removal Hearing

On April 2013, Immigration Judge (“IJ”) conducted Silais’s removal hearing. testified submitted docu mentary evidence. then continued removal hearing May when Silais’s country ‐ conditions expert, Brian Concannon, was available testify. Concannon a human rights attorney director Institute Justice Democracy Haiti, non profit organization based in Bos ton. Testimony testified following alleged facts: He born Aux Cayes, Haiti. joined Haitian political party

known as Òganizasyon Pèp Kap Lité (the “OPL”). At time, OPL one two largest opposition political parties Haiti. A group known Chimères who sup ported then President Jean Bertrand Aristide, often disturbed OPL meetings organized, beating participants, firing guns, throwing rocks. Although government entity, it allegedly received benefits vari ous officials included police officers their ranks. *3 identified two particular Chimères members he claimed he re peatedly encountered between and 2010: Ronald Felix and Charles Bertrand.

During a soccer game in where Silais was distributing political information, example, both Felix and Bertrand al legedly threw rocks at spectators and asked Silais about papers he distributing. They did injure Silais at incident.

At a later event, however, Felix purportedly attacked Silais his neighborhood, pushing Silais down, placing a revolver his mouth, and threatening kill him. When other people approached them, Felix released Silais, who ran away. Felix allegedly threw rocks at Silais he escaped.

Silais further testified February Felix and Bertrand went a political meeting Silais attending and began asking him about his political affiliation. Silais formed them he only wanted educate people, and Chimères harm him. During a Mardi Gras celebration soon afterward, though, both Felix Bertrand allegedly at tacked Silais his neighborhood. Consequently, he fled hid friend James Lete’s house. then testified when Chimères found Silais, they hit him with their hands pistol struck leg machete. After be gan bleed, Felix Bertrand stopped, escaped another friend’s house. Chimères then went family’s house allegedly beat certain family members. *4 3277

Silais then stated that, in September 2004, Chimères at tacked him while he was speaking at political meeting forced him to run away.

According Silais, he left Haiti November for Dominican Republic, where he remained until January when he heard that Haiti’s condition had improved. Silais tes tified that he wanted complete studies Haiti on “vet erinary agricultural techniques” required two years classroom work one year practice. He graduated from program January 2007.

Afterward, he worked an organization he cofounded assist Haiti’s orphaned children. Silais’s organ ization hosted event for World AIDS Day December Felix, Bertrand, other Chimères attended. They allegedly questioned Silais about what he was doing there, beat him, forced him leave event.

Silais finally testified during Haiti’s presidential election, Silais representative for Repons Peyizan po litical party, supporting then candidate Michel Martelly. While working “poll watcher,” witnessed Felix Bertrand attempt commit voter fraud stuffing ballots for Jude Celestin, their preferred candidate. When tried expressed first statement incorrect. yet another account, Lete noted “family’s home” before fleeing Lete’s home. could recall during hearing whether hidden Lete’s house hours days. written statement asserts returned Haiti No

vember could remember last name one other three

cofounders. *5 stop them, Felix purportedly hit and kicked him. As Silais tried flee, Felix and Bertrand threw rocks him. police arrived detained Felix, but released him after Silais de parted without filing a report. Silais testified he currently experiences lingering pain from incident.

Silais never contacted Haitian police report any above alleged encounters with After elec tion, Silais left Haiti boat Guatemala. Eventually, sought refuge United States. Documentary Evidence

In addition his testimony, presented written state ments over twenty pieces documentary cluding, part, (1) documents concerning identity, polit ical party membership, employment, education; (2) James Lete’s declaration; (3) Dr. Nora Rowley’s affidavit opining Silais’s scars were consistent alleged abuse; (4) Brian Concannon’s affidavit; (5) letter support Lawrence Hock, church acquaintance; (6) media reports articles concerning Haiti’s condition. unsuccessfully attempted enter other docu mentary evidence. During break between April May government submitted unsolicited, writ ten closing argument, highlighting testimony vague, inconsistent, uncorroborated. On May two days before hearing scheduled continue, sub mitted response government’s closing moved *6 ‐ submit additional “since DHS ha[d] called Mr. Silais’ credibility into question.” The additional included: (1) Silais’s own amended affidavit; (2) a declaration from Si lais’s brother ‐ in ‐ law addressing chain of custody of ev idence had collected in Haiti; (3) an affidavit from Silais’s former attorney interpreter discussing interpretation sues arose drafting Silais’s original statement; (4) media account recent armed robbery OPL member Haiti. denied motion submit additional because DHS had only recently received mate rials had failed make subjects available cross examination.

3. Brian Concannon’s Testimony On May presented country conditions expert, Brian Concannon. Concannon stated Haiti experi enced escalating conflict between Some groups, including few associated with government, engaged suppression anti government political activity through intimidation, rock throwing, gun violence. Meanwhile, Haitian police struggled issues discipline, corruption, inexperience, rendering Hai tian justice system ineffective prosecuting political killings. Over time, however, relationship between Concannon’s organization Haitian justice officials improved, violence declined from previous levels. Later, dur ing Haiti’s presidential elections, country suffered incidents voter fraud, including ballot stuffing. Mov ing forward, Concannon noted, Haiti remained vulnerable political violence, particularly during presidential elections.

B. The Immigration Judge’s Decision On January IJ denied Silais’s petition for two alternative reasons: (1) he had not met his burden of proof, because (a) his testimony vague and inconsistent, and (b) had failed to present sufficient corroboration; (2) he had not established eligibility for relief on merits.

First, IJ highlighted Silais’s “vague inconsistent testimony lack to corroborate events cen ‐ tral to his claim.” The judge then discussed number gaps Silais’s memory inconsistencies among Silais’s testi ‐ mony, his written statements, Lete’s declaration. The IJ found Silais credible despite these inconsistencies, but found substantial lack corroboration fatal to his claim. For ex ample, IJ observed “did not submit affidavits or statements from key parties his case, such his brother law, who currently lives United States who went to Haiti retrieve documents for [Silais].” failed present any any family members or co workers corroborate specific claims vio lence, provided any medical reports related alleged injuries, despite reportedly seeking treatment. Fur ther, made any reasonable efforts obtain ad ditional corroborative explained why it would have been unreasonable do so. Relatedly, Concannon’s tes timony, Silais’s media articles, Dr. Rowley’s affidavit all failed corroborate specific claims. sum, IJ con cluded, “not me[e]t burden proof establish eligibility for asylum, withholding removal, relief under CAT.”

Alternatively, concluded eligible relief merits. harms alleged constituted *8 harassment but did not rise the level of past persecution. Further, though the harassed Silais, could not show the Haitian government unwilling or unable protect him if were return—Silais never attempted file police report or otherwise prompt law enforcement officers intervene.

C. The Board of Immigration Appeals’s Decision The Board Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) incorporated affirmed the IJ’s decision September opinion. its supplemental comments, the BIA pointed out inconsist encies throughout Silais’s statements, criticized Concannon’s Dr. Rowley’s evidence as too general, noted lack testimony from Silais’s brother law. The BIA then re jected Silais’s argument IJ’s exclusion supple mental evidence prevented him from presenting case. The BIA noted parties completed direct, cross, redirect, then continued hearing only make time Concannon’s testimony. BIA further explained supplemental evidence “did independently sat isfy burden proof address weaknesses Immigration Judge identified [Silais’s] claim; namely, lack testimony from witnesses who could corroborate events upon which [Silais’s] claim based.” Specifically, BIA repeatedly expressed its shared concern IJ: “not provide[d], or ade quately explain[ed] absence of, reasonably available cor roborating regarding critical elements claim, such affidavits other coworkers family members Haiti.” Thus, concluded BIA, could show IJ’s actions prejudiced him. *9 9 15 3277

II. Discussion “Where Board affirms immigration judge’s deci sion and adds its own analysis, as it here, we review immigration judge’s decision Board’s additional rea soning.” Santashbekov v. Lynch , 834 F.3d 836, 839 (7th Cir. 2016). is required “write exegesis on every contention.” Mansour v. INS , 230 F.3d 902, 908 (7th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). All it must do is “consider issues raised, announce its decision terms sufficient enable a reviewing court perceive it has heard thought merely reacted.” Id . review decisions deny requested relief “under highly deferential version substantial evi dence test.” Mansour , F.3d 905 (citation internal quotation marks omitted). Under this standard review, must affirm Agency’s decisions if they are “supported by reasonable, substantial, probative evidence record considered whole, reverse when so compelling no reasonable factfinder could fail find requisite fear persecution.” Id (citation internal quotation marks omitted); see Mema v. Gonzales , F.3d (7th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). “To win reversal under deferential standard, [the petitioner] must show merely record supports conclusion contrary reached BIA but com pels contrary conclusion.” Kholyavskiy v. Mukasey (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bradvica INS 1997)). *10 10 15 3277

On appeal, challenges Agency’s denial of his pe tition for asylum withholding of removal. ^[5] To qualify for asylum, must show “a well founded fear of persecution on account race, religion, nationality, membership in par ticular social group, or political opinion” upon return Haiti. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); see 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). eligibility for withholding removal hinges whether his “life or freedom would be threatened” in Haiti due po litical opinion, among other things. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b). “A finding past persecution creates rebuttable presumption future persecution.” Stanojkova v. Holder , F.3d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(b)(l)(i), 1208.16(b)(l)(i)). Bad acts private individ uals may constitute persecution only if foreign govern ment complicit those acts unable or unwilling take steps prevent them. N.L.A. v. Holder , F.3d (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Cece v. Holder (7th Cir. 2013)). argues (1) ignored misconstrued

various arguments evidence; (2) violated statutory due process right present evidence; (3) incorrectly concluded alleged violence did amount past persecution. address each contention turn.

A. Agency Handling of Arguments and Evidence makes various arguments that the Agency abused its discretion by ignoring or misconstruing certain arguments and pieces evidence. have explained that “completely ignoring an argument” constitutes legal error, Iglesias v. Mukasey , F.3d 530–31 (7th Cir. 2008), does ignoring or failing address necessary elements legal analysis, Jawad Holder , 2012). If, however, record reveals ignore argument ( e.g. if “the IJ described [the] testimony [at issue] detail evaluated its relevance,” id. ), there is no error. Id In those instances, IJ’s findings fact are con clusive unless “reasonable adjudicator would be compelled conclude contrary.” U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Santashbekov

First, contends both IJ BIA ignored Concannon’s testimony Dr. Rowley’s affidavit. He relat edly asserts BIA misconstrued argument IJ ignored evidence—incorrectly understanding argument be IJ erred ascribing little weight. Neither IJ nor BIA, however, ignored Concannon’s testimony Dr. Rowley’s affidavit. IJ spent nearly two pages describing Concannon’s testimony detail. end, IJ concluded “[w]hile there no reason doubt credibility Concannon’s testimony affidavit, does know respondent personally could attest any specific facts claim.” Likewise, “considered … [the] Affidavit Curriculum Vitae Dr. Nora Rowley” referenced “a statement Dr. Nora Rowley about [Silais’s] claimed trauma its likely causes.” *12 ‐ Again, the took issue with the evidence, highlight ‐ ing “Dr. Rowley not testify, she was not available for cross ‐ examination her assertions, she was not quali ‐ fied as expert the court.” BIA made the same find ‐ ings. Apart incorporating the IJ’s findings fact, the BIA added the following regarding Concannon: “While [Si ‐ lais’s] evidence country conditions, including [Concan non’s] testimony, do provide some support for the plausibility claim, such evidence is general nature does not address the specific incidents allegedly endured.” (citation omitted). Continuing Dr. Rowley’s affidavit, BIA con cluded, “[T]he medical evidence [Silais] submitted cre ated years after alleged incidents, at time events question, doctor made available for cross examination.” So Agency evaluated at issue simply found it insufficient corroborate specific claims harm. As such, Silais’s argument ignored misconstrued Concannon’s Dr. Rowley’s amounts nothing more than frustration with IJ’s factual findings. Without more, we see no reason disturb them.

Mansour does change outcome. There, we held BIA’s reference petitioner family “Syrian Christians”—when they were actually “Assyrian Christians”—was potentially critical mistake: According Assyrians were non Arab Christians, while Syr ians were largely Muslim. 908. This mistake car ried it potential serious repercussions for pe titioner’s religion based torture claim, forced us ques tion whether BIA adequately addressed claim; so remanded. Id. argues Agency’s mis interpretation arguments analogous *13 the mistake in Mansour cannot, he concludes, be sure the BIA understood claim. In Mansour however, the BIA’s mis take was so fundamental the petitioner’s torture claim that the Board had effectively ignored it, which is legal error. Here, the BIA made no such mistake. Far misunder standing claim both the BIA the IJ dealt extensively with Concannon’s testimony Dr. Row ley’s affidavit simply found them insufficient.

Second, maintains that the BIA failed address argument that IJ had incorrectly summarized Concan non’s testimony. IJ concluded that “the [Haitian justice] system ha[d] gradually been getting better” since 2006. argues, however, that Concannon had testified that team’s relationship Haitian justice officials was getting better. Again, this simply factual disagreement. After detailing Concannon’s testimony, understood Haitian justice system be gradually improving. And there support conclusion: Concannon testified in part that armed groups in Haiti had recently been less organized less directly tied political leaders, and, time, level violence Haiti lower than it Nothing record compels us disagree.

Finally, argues Agency abused its discretion misrepresenting election incident. He claims Agency erroneously considered only Haitian po lice detained Chimères who had attacked fled scene without filing police report. doing so, concludes, ignored fact police released soon afterward—a mis take, argues, we found determinative Chitay Pirir INS 1999). There, *14 3277 observed that BIA’s assertion that four assailants were ar rested two them were convicted murder “ha[d] no support record ,” which showed that police only detained quickly released four assailants, then detained two them second time. Id . at (emphasis added). Here, Agency’s assertions were supported by record. And, although Agency mention police released Felix, Agency relied incident another example how failed to avail himself police protection. fact police eventually released assailant after no incident report charges were filed does detract conclusion.

B. Right Present Evidence argues Agency violated right pre sent evidence. “A petitioner’s claim immigration hear ing procedurally insufficient is reviewed de novo .” Pron sivakulchai v. Gonzales (7th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

According Silais, violated both statutory constitutional due process right present by denying request submit supplemental materials during removal hearing. have stated “[n]on constitu tional arguments always come first; constitutional conten tions must be set aside until their resolution is unavoidable.” Boyanivskyy Gonzales 2006) (cita tions omitted, alteration original). right reasonable opportunity present all rel

evant impartial hearing protected statute regulation. Id 292–93 (citing U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B) (“the alien shall have reasonable opportunity … present *15 15 15 ‐ 3277 on the alien’s own behalf, cross examine wit nesses presented the Government”); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.1(c) (“The immigration judge shall receive consider material relevant rule upon objections, otherwise regulate the course of the hearing.”)). Thus, we evaluate the IJ’s action for compliance with these provisions rather than with constitutional due process. Id ^[6] “[T]he appropriate char acterization the IJ’s action is, essence, matter of degree. In end, must determine whether, given totality circumstances, petitioner full fair opportunity put on [his] case.” Rodriguez Galicia v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 529, 538 (7th Cir. 2005); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B).

Courts, “do set aside agencies’ decisions un less mistakes cause prejudice.” Rehman v. Gonzales , 441 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). To prevail, must show “prejudice such IJ’s mistake impacted outcome proceedings.” Pronsivakulchai , 461 F.3d at 907 (citation omitted). other words, must “produce some concrete indicating violation procedural protection actually potential affecting outcome … deportation proceedings.” Shahandeh Pey v. INS , 831 F.2d (7th Cir. 1987) (emphasis removed); see also Roman INS , F.3d 2000). He stresses *16 15 ‐ 3277 Agency denied “asylum claim because he pro ‐ vide very evidence IJ rejected.” It is true that Agency denied his claim part due inconsistencies across his written oral testimony lack corroborating ev ‐ idence from brother ‐ law, who retrieved certain docu ‐ mentary evidence from Haiti. And some rejected evi dence arguably would have addressed these issues. Yet, none supplemental proffer addressed Agency’s repeated concern: lack specifically corroborating cidents violence about which testified. Silais pro vided no medical treatment records related own al leged injuries no testimony from family co workers who were also allegedly beaten threatened. Likewise, failed demonstrate Agency that obtaining such evi dence would have required unreasonable efforts. These omis sions alone were sufficient preclude receiving relief. As none additional would have filled this gap, cannot show outcome would have been different IJ admitted supplemental evidence. maintains erred by neither warning him specific corroborating necessary nor giving him opportunity supplement record. Darinchuluun v. Lynch , stated no such prior notice later opportunity required, because REAL ID Act itself informs petitioners may require corrobo rating evidence—even if, here, they are found be credi ble. F.3d n.21, 1216–17 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Rapheal v. Mukasey , (7th Cir. 2008)); see Abraham v. Holder 2011). asserts Darinchuluun incorrectly decided must be overturned; but waives argument failing support it any way. See Puffer Allstate Ins. Co. *17 ‐ F.3d (7th Cir. 2012) (recognizing the well ‐ estab ‐ lished principle that arguments that are “underdeveloped, conclusory, unsupported by law” are waived).

Next, relying Boyanivskyy at Silais argues the IJ’s rejection the supplemental evidence prejudiced him essentially manufacturing underdeveloped record. case, the IJ knowingly scheduled the hearing for a day it knew the petitioner’s three crucial witnesses could testify, seemingly forced petitioner to prematurely rest case. Id . The IJ then highlighted lack corrobora ‐ tion as principal reason denying petitioner’s claim. Id . determined IJ’s actions prejudiced pe titioner, as witnesses were crucial to claim likely would have altered outcome. Id Here, IJ al lowed to testify fully, to submit over twenty pieces documentary present country conditions expert. And even if admitted extra materials issue, case still would have lacked corroborating evi dence specific incidents harm violence him family. Further, this is un successfully tried submit, occurred Boyanivskyy ; ra ther, present reasonably try obtain it. Given omission record, cannot demonstrate preju dice. finally posits Agency should have consid

ered admitted supplemental given have required them do so motion reopen context. See, e.g., Boika Holder 738–40 2013). This comparison is inapt. cannot adequately con sider whether there good cause reopen case without reviewing relevant question. This logic does *18 18 15 3277 not map neatly onto submissions of during hear ‐ ing, where the receives rules on admissibility, en ‐ forces deadlines adheres to considerations procedural efficiency. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.1(c) (“The immigration judge shall … regulate the course the hearing.”); C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (“If an application or document not filed within time set by the Immigration Judge, the opportunity to file that application or document shall be deemed waived.”).

C. Past Persecution Lastly, challenges Agency’s conclusion alleged harm he experienced did not amount to past per ‐ secution. family’s harm, while dis turbing, was uncorroborated does compel us con clude differently. In addition, failed successfully demonstrate Haitian government unable un willing protect him—a required showing given claim based on violent acts See N.L.A. , (citing Cece F.3d 675). As Agency stressed, did report any alleged incidents harm Haitian police give them opportunity tervene. While he challenged Agency’s conclusion tangen tially arguing Agency ignored related evi dence, have rejected those arguments. This leaves Agency’s finding otherwise undisturbed. any event, primary case upon which relies,

Gomes Gonzales 2007), reflects harms on wholly different level than what forced endure. *19 There, petitioner was brutally attacked while riding his motorcycle: He was knocked unconscious, broke his jaw, re quired twenty stitches his head, his lips stitched gether, spent over week hospital, suffered from memory loss. Id . at 750. After returned home from hos pital, his attackers broke down his door, ransacked his house, set fire curtains, pushed him wife ground, placed large knives at their throat, threatening kill them. Id . at 750–51, 754. His family attacked mul tiple occasions ( e.g. having their head, arms, tongues sliced with knives; getting robbed; having guns pointed at their heads), one relatives murdered. Id . Moreover, unlike Silais, petitioner Gomes able corroborate these attacks medical records, dental rec ords, letters witnesses, newspaper articles specific incidents. Id . 750–51. sum, while we do intend downplay what

allegedly experienced Haiti, hold record does compel us reject Agency’s decision.

III. Conclusion For foregoing reasons, petition review Board’s decision D ENIED

[1] initial written statement, stated “po litical meeting” when Felix Bertrand attacked him, forcing him run Lete’s home. His second written statement, reflected encountered “in street.” During hearing,

[4] written statements, claimed there were about ten other individuals boat; during hearing, he claimed never reported number because counted boat’s passengers.

[5] contest, thus waived any right challenge, Agency’s conclusion ineligible for relief under CAT. See Tandia Gonzales 2007) (“Although [petitioner’s] opening brief court mentions claims withholding removal CAT relief, does set forth any arguments support these claims, so they are waived.”) (citation omitted).

[6] would reach constitutional inquiry only if com plained procedures outlined statutes regulations were constitutionally deficient. Boyanivskyy (citation omitted); see Pronsivakulchai (cautioning against “leading with open ended due process argument” advising petitioners “stick with claims based statutes regulations unless they believe one these rules violated Constitution lacunae rules have been filled defective procedures”) (citation omitted). makes no such claim.

[7] explicitly contest fact never filed po lice report, but assertions ignored improperly re jected related arguments suffice raise issue appeal.