
    JIN ZHU ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-1488-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 27, 2010.
    June H. Zhou, Boca Raton, FL, for Petitioner.
    Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General; David V. Bernal, Assistant Director; Lindsay E. Williams, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    
      PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, and PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Jin Zhu Zhang, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a February 29, 2008, BIA order denying her motion to reopen. In re Jin Zhu Zhang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 29, 2008). Zhang’s motion to reopen was based on her claim that she fears persecution on account of the birth of her U.S. citizen children in violation of China’s family planning policy. For largely the same reasons 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 decision denying her motion to reopen. See id. at 168-72.

The BIA reasonably declined to address all but one of Zhang’s documents related to country conditions in China because she failed to establish that such evidence was previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see also INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). Although Zhang correctly contends that her children’s birth certificates were previously unavailable, the birth of her children alone did not demonstrate her prima facie eligibility for relief, and the previously unavailable document related to country conditions in China did not discuss the use of forced sterilization, or other forms of persecution, in the enforcement of China’s family planning policy. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169-72.

For the foregoing reasons, this petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 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).  