SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of several Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petitions for review are DENIED.

Each of these petitions challenges a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) or the BIA denying a motion to reopen based on either the movant’s failure to demonstrate changed country conditions sufficient to avoid the applicable time and numerical limits or the movant’s failure to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the underlying relief sought. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c), 1003.23(b). 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 have one or more children in violation of China’s coercive population control program. For largely the same reasons as 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. While the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao were from Fujian Province, as are most of the petitioners here, one petitioner is from Guangdong Province 2 and one is from Zhejiang Provinces. 3 Regardless, as with the evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao, the evidence they have submitted related to Guangdong and Zhejiang Provinces either does not discuss forced sterilizations or references isolated incidents of persecution of individuals who are not similarly situated to the petitioners. See id. at 160-61.

Some of the petitioners 4 argue that the BIA applied an incorrect burden of proof *814 by requiring them to establish more than their pHma facie eligibility for relief. However, in those cases, the BIA either explicitly considered the petitioners’ prima facie eligibility or found instead that they failed to demonstrate changed country •conditions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); see also INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988).

One petitioner 5 contends that the BIA improperly reviewed de novo the IJ’s factual findings when it adopted and affirmed her decision. We disagree. See Jian Hui Shoo, 546 F.3d at 162-63.

Contrary to the arguments asserted by several petitioners, 6 we find no error in the BIA’s refusal to credit unauthenticated evidence in light of an underlying adverse credibility determination. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007).

To the extent, that two of the petitioners 7 argue that they were eligible to file successive asylum applications based solely on their changed personal circumstances, these arguments are foreclosed by our decision in Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2008).

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).