SUMMARY ORDER

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 suffi *677 cient to avoid the applicable time and numerical limits or the movant’s failure to demonstrate prima fade eligibility for the underlying relief sought. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1008.2(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 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.

Some of the petitioners 2 argue that they were eligible to file a successive asylum application based solely on their changed personal circumstances. That argument is foreclosed by our decision in Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 156, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2008). Other petitioners 3 challenge the BIA’s refusal to credit their unauthenticated evidence in light of an immigration judge’s underlying adverse credibility determination. Again, applicable precedent is fatal to that argument. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007) (relying on the doctrine falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus to conclude that the agency may decline to credit documentary evidence submitted with a motion to reopen by an alien who was found not credible in the underlying proceeding).

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).