The last question might be beyond the scope of how deeply you've looked at this. When you take something like a board or a series of adjudicators with almost 500 members and look at the statistical breakdown of the numbers of acceptances and rejections, clearly, as Marwan pointed out, rejecting everybody has to be an outlier that's subject to reproach. However, when you're talking about somebody who's 20% off the norm, it seems to me that in a distribution that counts 500 members, you would expect that a certain number of people—just based on case flow, and assuming the honesty of everybody involved—will be 20% below the norm, some will be 20% above, and there are also instances of bias where the casework is—
On March 22nd, 2018. See this statement in context.