I'm told that sometimes they do. I don't know how often. I'm not the board, but I'm told that sometimes the information is incomplete. It's through the failure of the person...or the thought that the person may have that if you hold this piece of information back, maybe it leads to some questions about their exclusion. They say, “Well, I'd rather not put that in here now. I'll save that for later.” We're saying in that situation, you don't bring it up later; you don't have that opportunity to bring up facts that are questionable in terms of the impact they may have. They may increase the likelihood that you're at risk but create a possibility that you might be excluded. So you say, “Well, let's see what the RPD does with the rest of the information. I'll hold this back. If worst comes to worst, I can always bring it to the refugee appeal division.” We don't want that kind of thing happening.
You were talking about examples from Burma, where people were involved in activities that were of questionable intent and impact. The person might say, “Well, I'll just say that I'm a member of the Aung San Suu Kyi movement and I won't mention all of those other things, because they might not like to hear about that. I can always bring it to the RAD later.”
So the idea is to say, no, bring it all to the refugee protection division, and if you don't bring it to the refugee protection division in the first instance, you're not going to have an opportunity later to supplement your case with evidence that you could have presented.