it before the BIA. We therefore decline to consider it. Cf. Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 120 (2d Cir.2007). Chen also alleges that the Chinese government recently intercepted mail to his parents containing Chen’s criticism of the government’s treatment of Christians, and that as a result, village officials visited his parents’ house and issued a notice ordering him to report for punishment. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Chen did not establish materially changed country conditions on this basis, as the BIA did not err in giving little evidentiary weight to the documents Chen submitted in support of his motion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in
holding that the weight afforded to documentary evidence  lies largely within the discretion of the ij holding that the weight accorded to evidence lies largely within the agencys discretion holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the agency 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 agencys discretion