
    XIAO FANG LIU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-4613-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 2, 2012.
    Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, NJ, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director; Sabatino F. Leo, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON 0. NEWMAN, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Xiao Fang Liu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of an October 19, 2010, BIA decision denying her motion to reopen. In re Xiao Fang Liu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 19, 2010). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir.2008).

Liu’s motion to reopen was based on her claim that she feared persecution in China on account of both the birth of her children in the United States in violation of China’s population control program and her continued practice of Falun Gong. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the BIA’s determination that, as to her family planning claim, Liu failed to establish either material changed country conditions excusing the untimely filing of her motion or her prima facie eligibility for relief. See id. at 158-72; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). Additionally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to credit certain of Liu’s unauthenticated individualized evidence based on the agency’s underlying adverse credibility determination. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-49 (2d Cir.2007).

Liu does not challenge the BIA’s determination that she failed to demonstrate changed country conditions related to her Falun Gong claim.

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).  