[blml] Chicago regional case 11: Director's error [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Steve Willner]

> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au
> In the regional case 11 in question, the facts were agreed, but
> the Director had misinterpreted Law 68A.  Since the appeals
> panel was not discovering any new facts, it lacked the power to
> vary the Director's ruling.

I must have missed that part.  Wasn't the issue whether a certain 
statement did or did not constitute a claim?  L68A defines a claim, but 
both the factual question of what words were said and the bridge 
judgment as to whether those words meet the standards of L68A are within 
the purview of an AC.