SUMMARY ORDER

Each of these petitions challenges an order of the BIA denying a motion to reopen, or affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of 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 prima fa-cie eligibility for the underlying relief sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b). Under the circumstances of these cases, we consider both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d *115 Cir. 2008). The applicable standard of review is well-established. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006).

The motions to reopen at issue in these petitions were each based primarily on the birth of one or more children to the Chinese citizen petitioners. For largely the same reasons this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008), we find no error in the agency’s decisions. See id. at 168-72. Any argument that the petitioners are eligible to file a successive asylum application based on changed personal circumstances is foreclosed by our decision in Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2008). 2

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).