
    WAN PING LIN, Yan Qing Zhu, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 07-5572-ag (L), 07-5643-ag (Con), 08-3537-ag (Con).
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 20, 2010.
    Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York, for Petitioners.
    Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Senior Litigation Counsel; Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROGER J. MINER, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey.
    
    
      
      . Dana M. Camilleri, a Law Clerk at the U.S. Department of Justice, assisted counsel on the brief.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioners Wan Ping Lin and his wife, Yan Qing Zhu, natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek review of: (1) the November 28, 2007 order of the BIA affirming the February 24, 2004 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel Anne Brennan denying petitioners’ application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), In re Wan Ping Lin, Yan Qing Zhu, Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/[ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 28, 2007), aff'g Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/[ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 24, 2004); and (2) the July 2, 2008 order of the BIA denying Lin’s motion to reopen, In re Wan Ping Lin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jul. 2, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

1. Dkt. Nos. 07-5572-ag (L), 07-5643-ag (Con)

Petitioners argue that the BIA erred in concluding that they failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on the birth of their U.S. citizen children in violation of China’s family planning policy. This argument fails because we have previously reviewed the BIA’s consideration of evidence similar to that submitted by Petitioners and found no error in its conclusion that such evidence is insufficient to establish an objectively reasonable fear of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 156-65 (2d Cir.2008). Therefore, the agency properly denied Petitioners’ application for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). Because Petitioners were unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim, they were necessarily unable to meet the higher standard required to succeed on a claim for withholding of removal and CAT relief where those claims rested on the same factual predicate. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(l)(i)(A); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006); Kyaw Zwar Tun v. INS, 445 F.3d 554, 567 (2d Cir.2006).

II. Motion to Reopen: Dkt. No. 08-3537-ag (Con)

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam). Lin’s motion to reopen was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, there is no time or number limitation for filing a motion to reopen that is “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(H).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lin’s motion to reopen because it reasonably found that he failed to proffer material evidence that would establish his prima facie eligibility for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see also INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). The translation errors, which Lin argues constitute the functional equivalent of changed country conditions, would not materially alter the meaning of the country conditions evidence that both this Court and the BIA have previously considered.

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(b).  