SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Jian Ming Weng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 7, 2011, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Jian Ming Weng, No. A093 397 441 (B.I.A. Sept. 7, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233(2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Weng argues that he established his prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) by showing that the Chinese government was aware of his membership in, and activities in support of, the China Democracy Party (“CDP”) in the United States. We find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial of reopening.

Weng did not join the CDP until after he left China and did not allege past persecution on account of his political activities. So in order to demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for relief, he was required to show that there was a realistic chance that Chinese authorities were either aware or likely to become aware of his activities with the CDP. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008). To make this showing, Weng submitted a letter from his father, in which his father asserted that local police came to his home and told him they were aware that Weng had joined the CDP. The BIA reasonably concluded that this evidence was inadequate to establish that Chinese authorities were aware or likely to become aware of Weng’s CDP activities because he did not contest the agency’s prior adverse credibility determination, and the evidence submitted was not meaningfully authenticated. See Kaur, 413 F.3d at 234 (petitioner’s evidence submitted with a motion to reopen was not material because it did not rebut a prior adverse credibility determination); Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 147-48 (2d Cir. 2007); Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005).

As the BIA reasonably concluded that Weng’s motion to reopen failed to establish his prima facie eligibility for asylum, with *211 holding of removal, and CAT relief, it did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).