for China, which indicated that “[t]he government has continued to wage a severe campaign against Falun Gong,” and not that conditions had changed. Finally, Chen argues that she demonstrated changed country conditions based on her submission of an affidavit from her father and an unauthenticated village committee notice, both of which indicated that Chinese government officials had learned of her practice of Falun Gong and that she would be subject to “severe punishment” for practicing Falun Gong in the United States upon her return to China. The BIA’s determination that this evidence was of little probative value is entitled to deference, particularly in light of the agency’s prior finding that Chen was not credible. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 148-49 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); see also Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of
holding that the bia did not abuse is discretion in declining to credit unauthenticated documents submitted with a motion to reopen where alien had been found not credible in the underlying proceedings holding that bia did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider an unauthenticated document submitted with a motion to reopen to show changed country conditions holding that the bia did not abuse its discretion in discrediting a purported village notice where the document was not authenticated and the alien had been found not credible by the ij holding that the ij did not abuse his discretion in denying request for further continuance where the ij granted previous request holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider where the motion merely repeats arguments that the bia has previously rejected