
    YUPING SHI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-4501-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 15, 2010.
    
      Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General; John W. Blakeley, Senior Litigation Counsel; Kelly J. Walls, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler as respondent in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Yuping Shi, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 28, 2007, order of the BIA denying her motion to reconsider and reopen. In re Yuping Shi, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 28, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir.2008); Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006). We confíne our review to the BIA’s denial of Shi’s motion to reconsider and reopen because we lack jurisdiction to consider her challenges to the immigration judge’s “IJ’s” underlying adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Malvoisin v. INS, 268 F.3d 74, 75 (2d Cir.2001) (“[Cjompliance with the time limit for filing a petition to review the BIA’s final order is a strict jurisdictional prerequisite.”); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir.2001).

A. Motion to Reconsider

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Shi’s motion to reconsider because she failed to specify errors of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006). In fact, in her motion to reconsider the BIA’s February 2007 decision upholding an IJ’s August 2005 decision, Shi’s only challenges were to a different IJ’s March 2003 adverse credibility determination that the BIA had vacated in an earlier appeal.

B. Motion to Reopen

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Shi’s motion to reopen because it reasonably determined that she failed to establish her prima facie eligibility for relief from removal. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). This Court has previously reviewed the agency’s consideration of evidence similar to that which Shi relied on in this case and concluded that the agency does not err in finding that such evidence does not demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 158-73 (2d Cir.2008) (finding that the BIA reasonably concluded that the family planning policy in Fujian province is not implemented through the use of forced sterilizations but through the use of economic rewards and penalties that do not necessarily amount to “physical or mental coercion”).

For the foregoing reasons, the 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).  