With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in the United States. The BIA concluded that Zhu’s documentation failed to establish changed conditions in China, and that conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008) (reviewing BIA’s factual findings regarding changed country conditions under the substantial evidence standard). The BIA’s decision indicates that it considered all of the evidence included with Zhu’s third motion to reopen, including a letter from his wife. Contrary to Zhu’s assertions, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding the unsworn, uncorroborated letter unpersuasive and entitled to limited evidentiary weight in light of a prior finding that Zhu was not a credible witness. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 148 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). The BIA also reasonably concluded that Zhu’s

A: 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
B: 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
C: holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen
D: 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
A.