up a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). DHS may rebut that presumption by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the “applicant could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality” or (2) there has been a “fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution.” § 1208.13(b)(l)(i). Both the IJ and BIA determined that DHS had rebutted the presumption by showing both that Lin could relocate safely within China and that there had been a fundamental change in circumstances. Lin has not specifically challenged those determinations in his petition for review. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Even if not waived, the record supports those
holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal holding that an applicants failure to include specific issues in his petition for review results in abandonment of any claims of error he might have raised regarding the decisions related to those issues holding failure to preserve issues below results in waiver even of constitutional issues holding issues related to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time holding that the failure to obtain a ruling on a motion for new trial waives the issues raised for appellate review