But that wouldn't be...I shouldn't use the word “fair” again. Sometimes they would have other evidence that would take extra effort to get, maybe because it costs lots of money to get it, it takes time to translate, it might put family members at risk, or they have to admit that they are involved in a same-sex relationship. There may be any number of reasons why they just don't have that information at the time of the hearing.
I'm sure they want to put everything at the hearing to get the best situation, to get a yes. Why would they hold anything back?
But let's assume that they get some additional information: if they can't present it, that wouldn't make sense. It says here they can only present evidence that's “reasonably available”, or “expected in the circumstances to have presented”, and so on. Isn't that a difficult...?
You're actually saying that even though they may get evidence later--for whatever reason--they can't present it? Why do that? What kind of evidence do you have that people hide their torture information so that they wouldn't present it at the first hearing?