direct order to torture or execute an Azeri POW. We therefore conclude that Martirosyan has demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution as a conscientious objector and is eligible for political asylum and withholding of deportation on that basis. B. Martirosyan’s Alleged Due Process Violation Martirosyan claims that the BIA violated his due process rights by failing to mention, let alone examine, the documentation in the record that supports his application. We recently held that “an alien attempting to establish that the Board violated his right to due process by failing to consider relevant [documentary] evidence must overcome the presumption that [the Board] did review the evidence.” Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2000); cf. Zahedi, 222 F.3d 1157, 1165 n. 8 (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, because we hold that the BIA’s
holding that reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision holding lantarmartinez inapplicable because zahedi had not challenged the bias decision on due process grounds and because zahedi introduced evidence aimed at making out the objective element of his claim  and  the ij based her finding in part on an explicit rejection of the validity of his evidence holding that an ij made an explicit credibility when the ij found testimony not credible based on several enumerated inconsistencies holding that petitioner did not exhaust his due process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing by arguing that due process was violated on the ground that the ij admitted uncertified evidence holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged