Refugees and asylum seekers don't all have aid

[Khendraja'aro]

Only if you are completely ignorant about statistics and how they work. Having a lower threshold for hearing appeals would result in a higher proportion of unsuccessful appeals. It would also result in more reversals in total, but the proportion of appealed cases that get reversed would go down not up.

How do you know? You're once again believing that this magic 50% shit-number is actually real! Again, for your argument to be valid you'd need to prove to me that this 50% number has an actual scientific basis.

And isn't pulled out of someone's ass.

It could very well be that what you think is "50% of successful appeal" is actually a "80% of successful appeal" and they just moved the threshold by padding the numbers.

[RandBlade]

How do you know? You're once again believing that this magic 50% shit-number is actually real! Again, for your argument to be valid you'd need to prove to me that this 50% number has an actual scientific basis.

And isn't pulled out of someone's ass.

It could very well be that what you think is "50% of successful appeal" is actually a "80% of successful appeal" and they just moved the threshold by padding the numbers.

Because the government attorneys aren't judging whether there is a 50% chance of successful appeal, the challenging attorneys as opposing lawyers taking on the cases are. Furthermore they're not reporting or declaring a percentage on a case by case basis, they're getting judged by how they perform on aggregate - with every incentive to make sure they win the cases they do take on.

If a challenging attorney thinks they've got an 80% chance of success they've no reason to turn it down.

The lawyers aren't asked to "tell anyone" a percentage.

The further down a bell curve you go, the lower a proportion of appealed cases will succeed.

[Khendraja'aro]

Because the government attorneys aren't judging whether there is a 50% chance of successful appeal, the challenging attorneys as opposing lawyers taking on the cases are. Furthermore they're not reporting or declaring a percentage on a case by case basis, they're getting judged by how they perform on aggregate - with every incentive to make sure they win the cases they do take on.

If a challenging attorney thinks they've got an 80% chance of success they've no reason to turn it down.

The lawyers aren't asked to "tell anyone" a percentage.

The further down a bell curve you go, the lower a proportion of appealed cases will succeed.

Jesus Christ. It does not fucking matter WHO makes up the magic shit number. It still is a magic shit number.

Ohhh. "Bell curve". Yes, Rand, that's another magic word. Here's a newsflash: For a bell curve to actually work, first you need reliable numbers.

And not magic shit numbers.

And, by the way: They're not incentivized to win cases. They're incentivized to take on only "safe" cases. There's a difference.

Because if it were the first they would be rewarded for winning. Instead they're punished for losing. That's a completely different beast, one I'm sure will fly completely over your head.