SUMMARY ORDER

Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the BIA denying a motion to reopen based on either the movant’s failure to demonstrate changed country conditions sufficient to avoid the time and numerical limits applicable to such motions or the movant’s failure to demonstrate pri-ma facie eligibility for the underlying relief sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006).

Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, filed motions to reopen based on their claim that they fear persecution because they had one or more children in the United States. 2 For largely the same reasons this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-72 (2d Cir. 2008), we find no error in the BIA’s decisions. To the extent that some of the petitioners argue that they were eligible to file successive asylum applications based solely on their changed personal circumstances, such arguments are foreclosed by our decision in Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2008). 3

For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review are DENIED. As we *55 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).