that “[t]he burden of proof is on the applicant,” that “the applicant must establish that ... political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant,” and that an applicant’s testimony may be sufficient to meet this burden only if it “refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee.” The law is clear that “an agency is not free to ignore statutory language by creating a presumption on grounds of policy to avoid the necessity for finding that which the legislature requires to be found.” United Scenic Artists v. NLRB, 762 F.2d 1027, 1034 (D.C.Cir.1985). The creation of such a presumption “is beyond the [agency’s] statutory authority.” Id. at 1035; see also Cerrillo-Perez v. INS, 809 F.2d 1419, 1426-27 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the BIA lacks authority to adopt a
holding that the issue of waiver requires an analysis of the specific facts in each case holding that to rebut presumption plaintiff need only allege specific facts not plead evidence holding defendant failed to rebut statutory presumption where evidence was not particular to the facts and circumstances of the case holding that the bia cannot adopt a general presumption unfavorable to applicant but instead must consider the specific facts and circumstances of each ease recognizing presumption