
    QIU FENG ZHENG, aka Qui Feng Zheng, aka Ma Nan Hsuen v. BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Chun Guo Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Maoli Dong v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Li Bin Zhao Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Bi-Feng Liu v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Yufang Qiu, Bai Xiang Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Tan Feng Ling v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Yong Da Chen, aka Yongda Chen, aka Langda Chen v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Mao Zhou Lin, aka Mao Zai Lin v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]. Xiu Mei Zheng v. Holder, [ AXXX XXX XXX ].
    Nos. 10-1849-ag, 10-2010-ag, 10-2072-ag, 10-2364-ag, 10-2867-ag 10-2933-ag, 10-3734-ag, 10-3821-ag, 10-3993-ag, 10-4123-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 23, 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, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir.2008).

Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed 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 violation of China’s population control program. 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’ 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 Maoli Dong v. Holder, No. 10-2072-ag, (3) we are without jurisdiction to consider the petitioner’s argument that the BIA should have reopened his proceedings as a matter of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir.2006). In Li Bin Zhao v. Holder, No. 10-2364-ag, (4) there is no merit to the petitioner’s argument that motions to reopen seeking relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) are excused from the applicable time and numerical limitations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) (providing the time and numerical limitations applicable to motions to reopen); cf. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(b)(2) (excusing the time and numerical limitations for filing a motion to reopen to seek CAT relief only for aliens whose removal orders became final prior to March 22, 1999 and who moved to reopen proceedings before June 21, 1999).

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).  