that the situation had changed for the worse. See Zheng Zhong Chen v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 267, 269 (2d Cir.2006). For example, the 2006 Country Report that Palaj submitted states that arrest and pretrial detention conditions “continued to be an area of great concern,” that police corruption and impunity “continued” to be a problem, and that the country “continued to experience high levels of societal killings” and “remained” a source for trafficking of women and children. Further, the BIA properly found unpersuasive Palaj’s and her husband’s affidavits attesting that Palaj’s brother had experienced recent difficulties in Albania, where neither Palaj or her husband had personal knowledge of these incidents. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341-42 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). To the extent Palaj moved to reopen based on
holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the ij holding that the weight afforded to the evidence lies largely within the agencys discretion holding that the weight accorded to documentary evidence lies largely within the ijs discretion holding that the decision as to the weight to be afforded to documentary evidence  lies largely within the discretion of the ij holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the agency