
    YING ZHENG v. BIA, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Qui Hang Qui v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Hui Jin Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Jin-Fang Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Yong Jie Yang v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Chun Ying Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Xiu Min Wang v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Minj Liang v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Ai Ling Zhang Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Li Fang Chen Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Ren Xiong Zheng v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Su Zhong Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Yun Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Jin Yun Qiu v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Jian Jin Shi v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Jin Xiu Zou v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Yan Rong Liu v. HOLDER, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Qisung Li v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Li Juan Wang Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Guo Ming Ye v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ].
    Nos. 06-5148-ag, 07-3877-ag, 07-4659-ag, 07-4878-ag, 07-5434-ag, 07-5555-ag, 07-5659-ag, 08-0030-ag, 08-0107-ag, 08-0413-ag, 08-0595-ag, 08-0684-ag, 08-0872-ag, 08-1166-ag, 08-1411-ag, 08-1435-ag, 08-1633-ag, 08-1698-ag, 08-2027-ag, 08-4788-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 25, 2010.
    
      Gary J. Yerman, Esq., Law Office of Gary Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    P. Michael Truman, Esq., Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    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 as respondent where necessary.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the BIA denying a motion to reopen based on either the movant’s failure to demonstrate changed country conditions sufficient to avoid the time and numerical limits applicable to such motions or the movant’s failure to demonstrate pri-ma facie eligibility for the underlying relief sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court’s admonition that such motions are “disfavored.” Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006) (citing INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992)).

Petitioners, all citizens of China, filed motions to reopen based on their claim that they fear persecution because they had one or more children in the United States. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008), we find no error in the BIA’s decisions. See id. at 168-72. Any arguments that the petitioners are eligible to file a successive asylum application based on changed personal circumstances are foreclosed by our decision in Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir.2008). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination declining to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Ali, 448 F.3d at 518.

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). 
      
      . Although the BIA erred in Yong Jie Yang v. Holder, 07-5434-ag, by requiring petitioner to demonstrate changed country conditions despite the timely filing of his motion to reopen, we decline to remand because the BIA reasonably found, in the alternative, that petitioner failed to demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for relief. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338 (2d Cir.2006) (holding that remand is not required when "it is clear that the agency would adhere to its prior decision in the absence of error”); see also INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (holding that a movant’s failure to establish his prima facie eligibility for relief is a proper ground on which the agency may deny a motion to reopen).
     
      
      . We also find no error in the BIA’s decision in Jian Jin Shi v. Holder, 08-1411-ag, declining to credit petitioner’s unauthenticated evidence in light of the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir.2007).
     