
    GUI YONG LIANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-928.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 29, 2013.
    Eric Y. Zheng, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Erica B. Miles, Senior Litigation Counsel; Jesse Lloyd Busen, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, JOHN M. WALKER, JR., and ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Gui Yong Liang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 10, 2012, order of the BIA, affirming the November 19, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams, which denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gui Yong Liang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 10, 2012), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. New York City Nov. 19, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). 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).

Title 8, Section 1158(a)(3) of the United States Code provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to review the agency’s finding that an asylum application was untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Although we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and “questions of law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), because Liang raises no such challenge to the agency’s determination that he failed to file within one year of his entry to the United States, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D); Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 721-22 (2d Cir.2007). We also lack jurisdiction to review Liang’s unexhausted challenge to the denial of CAT relief. Accordingly, we review only the agency’s denial of withholding of removal.

The BIA did not err in finding that Liang was ineligible for withholding of removal based on his failure to demonstrate that he suffered past persecution on account of his opposition to China’s family-planning policies. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 857 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir.2004); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1) (if an alien is determined to have suffered past persecution, it shall be presumed that his life or freedom would be threatened in the future). Contrary to Liang’s argument, the agency properly considered the context of the incident in which Chinese family planning officials punched and kicked him and determined that this single occurrence did not rise to the level of persecution, as it was without aggravating factors such as arrest, detention, or serious injury to Liang. See Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223, 226 (2d Cir.2006); Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820, 821-22 (2d Cir.2011) (per curiam). While Liang also argues that the forced sterilization of his wife constituted additional persecution which should be considered cumulatively, this argument is unexhausted, as he did not raise it before the BIA, and we decline to consider it. Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 n. 1 (2d Cir.2007).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).  