Do you think that's adequate? We've seen some troubling reports in newspapers. An IRB member, David McBean I think, has rejected all of his asylum cases since his 2007 appointment—62 in 2010, 72 in 2009, and 35 in 2008—and almost all of them were because the claimant was not considered to be credible. I find it hard to believe that if sensitivity training or training to identify the credibility of someone from different cultures was given, some judges find no credibility whatsoever in every claim they come across.
Similar claims against IRB members Sterlin and Cassano have emerged, and I'm wondering how the IRB determined their reappointment, or if there was any further training. Is there a process to identify those who do not see any credibility in claimants, and does the chair or anyone sit down with them and ask why their decisions are inconsistent with the average decisions seen everywhere else?