
    QIU XIA LI v. HOLDER, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Ai Yue Yang v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Shi Yong Lin, Qing Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Chun Lin Lu v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Fei Xue Cheng v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Xia Juan Sun v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Shao Cheng He v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Yi Xiong Zhou v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Yan Qin Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Zhihua Ou v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Ling Zhi Li v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Rui Xin Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Guiying Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Yao Xiu Zheng v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Jian Feng Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Bao Hua Wang, aka Akiko Kurahashi v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Xia Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Changxu Jiang v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Hai Ou Sun Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ].
    Nos. 07-4083-ag, 07-4385-ag, 07-5410-ag, 08-0374-ag, 08-0730-ag, 08-0901-ag, 08-0915-ag, 08-1528-ag, 08-1702-ag, 08-1754-ag, 08-2012-ag, 08-2195-ag, 08-2258-ag, 08-2435-ag, 08-3775-ag, 08-3808-ag, 08-6156-ag, 09-1389-ag, 09-3564-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 26, 2010.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted where necessary.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Each of these petitions challenges a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) or the BIA denying a motion to reopen based on either the movant’s failure to demonstrate changed country conditions sufficient to avoid the applicable time and numerical limits or the movant’s failure to demonstrate prima fade eligibility for the underlying relief sought. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1008.2(c), 1003.23(b). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006).

Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed motions to reopen based on their claim that they fear persecution because they have one or more children in violation of China’s population control program. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-72 (2d Cir. 2008), we find no error in the BIA’s decisions.

Some of the petitioners argue that they were eligible to file a successive asylum application based solely on their changed personal circumstances. That argument is foreclosed by our decision in Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir.2008). Other petitioners challenge the BIA’s refusal to credit their unauthenticated evidence in light of an immigration judge’s underlying adverse credibility determination. Again, applicable precedent is fatal to that argument. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir.2007) (relying on the doctrine falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus to conclude that the agency may decline to credit documentary evidence submitted with a motion to reopen by an alien who was found not credible in the underlying proceeding).

For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 
      
      . The petitioners in Qiu Xia Li v. Holder, No. 07-4083-ag; Shi Yong Lin, Qing Lin v. Holder, No. 07-5410-ag; Xia Juan Sun v. Holder, No. 08-0901-ag; and Zhihua Ou v. Holder, No. 08-1754-ag.
     
      
      . The petitioners in At Yue Yang v. Holder, No. 07-43 85-ag; Ling Zhi Li v. Holder, No. 08-2012-ag; Xia Chen v. Holder, No. 08-6156-ag; and Hai Ou Sun v. Holder, No. 09-3564-ag.
     