
    MIAO CHEN, aka Mao Chen v. HOLDER, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Jan Shing Lin, aka Jian-Xin Lin, Lee Ching Chen, aka Li-Qin Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Guo Mou Li v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Chunmei Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Di Di Qiu v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Lu Qiang Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Cai Yun Wu v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Ling Liu Dong, aka Lin Lu Dong v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Min Tong Zheng v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Ming Duan Chan, aka Ming Duan Zhan, aka Ming Duan Zhang v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Chi-Hsun Chen, aka Qi Xun Chen, v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Ying Xue Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ].
    Nos. 11-58-ag, 11-226-ag, 11-363-ag, 11-1230-ag, 11-1358-ag, 11-1449-ag, 11-1557-ag, 11-2207-ag, 11-2251-ag, 11-2506-ag, 11-2558-ag, 11-3063-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 9, 2012.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the BIA denying a motion to reopen. The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir.2008).

Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed motions to reopen based on their claims that they fear persecution because they have had one or more children in the United States in violation of China’s population control program. All of the petitioners argued that changed country conditions regarding the enforcement of China’s population control population should excuse the untimely filing of then-motions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).

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 decisions. See id. at 158-72. Moreover, the BIA did not err in declining to credit the petitioners’ individualized and unauthenticated evidence in light of the agency’s underlying adverse credibility determinations. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir.2007).

In Miao Chen v. Holder, No. 11-58-ag, the BIA did not err in finding that petitioner failed to demonstrate material changed country conditions regarding the treatment of Christians in China sufficient to excuse the untimely filing of his motion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). In Min Tong Zheng v. Holder, No. 11-2251-ag, the BIA did not err in finding that petitioner’s medical condition did not constitute a valid exception to the time limitation applicable to his motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).

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).  