
    SHUN TING KE v. HOLDER, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Gui Hua Zhang v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Mei Chen Chen v. BCIS, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Fang Dong, Jin Hua Zheng v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Sen Ye, Teng Yi Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Zeng He Weng v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Zhi Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Jian Kong Ni v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Meiqian Gao, aka Mei Qin Gao v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Xiao Chon Hu, Yue Zhen Ye v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Xiuzhen Lin, aka Ziu Zhen Lin, aka Xiu Zhen Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Xiao Le Wang aka Xioale Wang v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Fang Guo Zeng, Xinzhen Zheng v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Qiu Qin Zou v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Xiu Feng Zheng v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Xai Mei Liu v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Yan Qing Tang v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Jing Guo Chen, aka Jin Guo Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Xiang Qing Lin, aka Peter Yi Chin Lin, aka Xiangqin Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ].
    Nos. 07-5078-ag (L), 09-0927-ag (Con), 08-0248-ag, 08-0371-ag, 08-0508-ag, 08-0704-ag, 08-0705-ag, 08-4143-ag, 08-4339-ag, 08-5611-ag, 08-5674-ag, 09-0024-ag (L), 09-2570-ag (Con), 09-0652-ag, 09-0762-ag, 09-0925-ag, 09-1066-ag, 09-1134-ag, 09-2263-ag, 09-2746-ag, 09-4611-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 25, 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 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 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 had one or more children in the United States. For largely the same reasons 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. To the extent that some of the petitioners argue that they were eligible to file successive asylum applications based solely on their changed personal circumstances, such arguments are foreclosed by our decision in Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir.2008).

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). 
      
      . To the extent that Petitioner in 08-0705-ag also challenges the IJ’s underlying decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, we lack jurisdiction to review those arguments. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir.2001).
     
      
      . Contrary to the arguments asserted by petitioners in Docket Numbers 07-5078-ag(L), 09-0927-ag(Con), 08-0248-ag, 09-0024-ag(L), 09-2570-ag(Con), 09-0652-ag, 09-0762-ag, 09-1066-ag, and 09-4611-ag, we find no error in the BIA's refusal to credit petitioners' unauthenticated evidence in light of the agency’s prior adverse credibility determinations. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir.2007). Further, although petitioners in Docket Numbers 07-5078-ag (L), 09-0927(Con), 09-0024-ag (L), 09-2570-ag (Con), and 09-1066-ag argue that the BIA erred by relying on U.S. Department of State Country Reports that contained mistranslations, that argument is without merit.
     