Very well.
I have a question for Mr. Berger.
You referred to the proposal to allow the appeals of individuals coming from one of the designated countries on the list, if the credibility and truthfulness of their story is accepted. It can be said that generally, in all legal systems, people do not like to have their decisions challenged, and that is the reason why appeal mechanisms are provided. They ensure that judges and board members make every effort to issue the right decision from the outset so as to avoid any appeals.
That said, under the provision you propose, we would end up in a situation where if an official simply stated, without any grounds, that he or she did not believe a person's version of their story, this person would automatically lose the right to appeal and therefore the option to request a review of the official's decision.
Is that not a little too easy? Will we not end up with officials who say that they simply do not believe the story in order to reject a case? Then, that would be the end of it and there would be no appeal?