because it reasonably found that he failed to submit sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in China. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see Wei Guang Wang v. B.I.A., 437 F.3d 270, 273 (2d Cir.2006) (finding that the birth of children in the United States was a change in personal circumstances, and not changed circumstances under the regulations); Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169. While Jiang argues that the evidence he submitted demonstrates that he will be subject to China’s family planning policy for having two children, the BIA reasonably gave little or no evidentiary weight to Jiang’s documents in light of the adverse credibility determination that was made in his underlying proceedings. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-48 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); see also Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of
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 in evaluating evidence of changed country conditions the bia compares the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below holding that the bia abused its discretion when it denied petitioners motion to reopen by failing to consider evidence of country conditions holding that the bia did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen supported by allegedly unavailable evidence regarding changed country conditions where there had been a previous adverse credibility finding in the underlying asylum hearing holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen