Petitioner Shengsheng Chen, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a March 8, 2012 order of the BIA affirming the February 3, 2010 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied Chen’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Shengsheng Chen, No. A089 258 329 (B.I.A. Mar. 8, 2012), aff'g, No. A089 253 329 (Immig.Ct.N.Y. City Feb. 3, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

Initially, Chen contends that the BIA erred in finding that he did not file his asylum application within a reasonable time of the cited change in circumstances, arising from his pro-China Democracy Party (“CDP”) activities in the United States. The BIA assumed, however, that Chen filed his application within a reasonable time of the start of his CDP activities, but concluded that his CDP activities did not establish an exception to the one-year filing requirement for asylum applications because they did not place him “at risk of harm” in China. Because he has not raised a justiciable legal question challenging the basis of that determination, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s preter-mission of Chen’s asylum application as untimely. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir. 2006).

Chen also challenges the agency’s denial of withholding of removal, contending it is objectively reasonable that he will be persecuted in China because of his CDP activities in the United States. He concedes that he has no apposite evidence other than his own testimony. Without objective evidence either that he would be singled out individually for persecution, or that there exists a pattern or practice of persecution of CDP members in China for their activities in the United States, the BIA reasonably determined that Chen’s testimony was speculative and thus insufficient to meet his burden of proof. Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 142-43 (2d Cir. 2008); Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir. 2005). Moreover, to the extent Chen contends that it was impossible for him to obtain objective evidence, he misapprehends the effect of the assignment to him of the burden to establish a clear probability that “authorities in [China] are either aware ... or likely to become aware of his [CDP] activities.” Hongsheng Leng, 528 F.3d at 143. Because Chen failed to prove affirmatively a clear probability of future persecution, the agency did not err when it denied withholding of removal. Kyaw Zwar Tun v. INS, 445 F.3d 554, 564-65 (2d Cir. 2006).

The agency’s denial of CAT relief is not before us, since Chen did not challenge it in his brief. Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir. 2005).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part and *140 DENIED in part. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).