SUMMARY ORDER

These petitions challenge decisions of the BIA that: (1) affirmed decisions of immigration judges (“IJ”) denying asylum and related relief; and (2) denied motions to reopen in the first instance. The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).

Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, sought relief from removal based on claims that they fear persecution because they have had more than one child in *113 violation of China’s population control program. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate their eligibility for relief. See id. at 158-72.

In addition, the BIA did not err in finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate their prima facie eligibility for relief based on the practice of either Falun Gong or a new religion because the evidence they submitted did not demonstrate that Chinese authorities are aware of, or likely to become aware of, their practices. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168.

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).