SUMMARY ORDER

Each of these petitions challenges a decision of the BIA either affirming the decision of an immigration judge denying a motion to reopen or denying a motion to reopen in the first instance. The applicable standards of review by this Court are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).

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, 546 F.3d at 158-73, 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 *128 here, one of the petitioners 2 is from Zhe-jiang Province. As with the evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao related to Fujian Province, her evidence related to Zhejiang Province was deficient in some instances because it does not discuss forced sterilizations and in the remainder because it references isolated incidents of persecution of individuals who are not similarly situated to the petitioner. See id. at 160-61, 170-71. The BIA did not err in declining to credit some of the petitioners’ 3 unauthenticated evidence in light of an underlying adverse credibility determination. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 148, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007).

Two of the petitioners 4 argue that the agency applied an incorrect burden of proof by requiring them to establish a certainty of persecution. To the contrary, in those cases, the agency either reasonably relied on their failure to demonstrate changed country conditions or explicitly applied the appropriate prima facie standard. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168.

Four of the petitioners 5 argue that the BIA erred in discounting notices they submitted, purportedly issued by family planning officials, solely because they were unauthenticated. While the agency may err in rejecting a document solely based on the alien’s failure to properly authenticate the document pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.6, see Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 403 (2d Cir. 2005), the notices were not material to petitioners’ claims because they merely referenced the family planning policy’s mandatory sterilization requirement without indicating that such sterilizations are performed by force, see Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 165, 172.

In Feng Mei Lin v. Holder, No. 10-29-ag, we decline to either consider the extra-record evidence petitioner submitted or remand for the agency to do so. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); see also Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260, 269-70 (2d Cir. 2007). Because the agency did not err in finding that the petitioners in JinSai Gao v. Holder, No. 09-4028-ag, Neng Quan Wang v. Holder, No. 10-57-ag, and Yi Luan Lin v. Holder, No. 10-1501-ag, failed to demonstrate their prima facie eligibility for relief, and because that finding was dispositive of their motions to reopen, we need not consider the additional arguments raised in their briefs. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168.

We are without jurisdiction to consider two of the petitions 6 to the extent they challenge the agency’s underlying denial of the petitioners’ applications for asylum and related relief because petitioners did not timely petition for review of those decisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001).

For the foregoing reasons, these petitions for review are DENIED. As we *129 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).