Pardon me, but it's not a helpful way of framing the problem, and for this reason. I think most of us who are involved in this would like to be able to agree with the officer. It would be easier. That's one thing to say.
The other thing I would say as an academic and as somebody who's worked as a journalist is you can evaluate the evidence. And I think that I, the people I work with, and Amnesty International have the solid method for evaluating evidence: historical context, political context, and sources of information. I think we are often dealing with judges who have two weeks of training and with officers who don't have that much training.
I would give you as an example presenting extensive evidence from reputable sources, and having it refuted by an officer who refers to a web page—