argument was not in Lin’s motion to reopen, and the document was only included in a packet of materials submitted after his motion was filed; furthermore it does not appear to support his claim, as the document expressly states that it is not to be cited to in any document and is not “conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum.” J.A. 9. In the alternative, Lin appears to argue that the BIA should have provided him with an opportunity to authenticate the documents. While the opportunity to authenticate documents should not be dismissed lightly, when an individual seeks to reopen an asylum claim that has already been denied he bears the burden of showing materially changed conditions. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 148-49 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); In re S-Y-G, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 251 n. 2
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 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 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 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