SUMMARY ORDER
Zhen Jie Guo and Yi Mei Wang, natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek review of a June 19, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the December 5, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) George T. Chew, pretermitting their applications for asylum and denying their applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhen Jie Guo, Yi Mei Wang Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (BIA June 19, 2009), ajfg Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 5, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the decision of the IJ 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).
I. Petitioners’ Political Opinion Claim
The agency reasonably determined that petitioners failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution due to their general opposition to Chinese government policy. Even if subjectively held, petitioners failed to demonstrate that authorities in China are aware or likely to become *82aware of their opinions. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir.2008) (“to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in the absence of any evidence of past persecution, an alien must make some showing that authorities in his country of nationality are either aware of his activities or likely to become aware of his activities”); Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir.2005) (holding that, absent solid support in the record for the petitioner’s assertion that he would persecuted, his fear was “speculative at best”).
II. Petitioners’ Family Planning Claim
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution based on the birth of their two United States citizen children. We have previously reviewed the BIA’s consideration of evidence similar to that which petitioners submitted and have found no error in its conclusion that such evidence was insufficient to establish material changed country conditions or an objectively reasonable fear of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169-72 (noting that “[w]e do not ourselves attempt to resolve conflicts in record evidence, a task largely within the discretion of the agency”); see also Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir.2006) (noting that while the BIA must consider evidence such as “the oft-cited Aird affidavit, which [it] is asked to consider time and again[,] ... it may do so in summary fashion without a reviewing court presuming that it has abused its discretion”). Nothing in the record compels us to conclude that the BIA ignored the evidence petitioners submitted or the arguments they made, evidence and arguments the BIA is asked to consider time and again. See Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 338 n. 17.
Because petitioners were unable to establish the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim, they were necessarily unable to establish a clear probability of future persecution or a likelihood of torture. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 155-56 (2d Cir.2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED. 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).