In those circumstances representations made by the failed appellant are carefully considered on an individual basis by officials advising the Minister and by the Minister himself or herself. I do not see why we should begin to blur the distinction and ask the tribunal, whose job is to determine appeals on a point of law for the purpose of the 1951 convention, to rove outside its function and express policy or humanitarian opinions. It is not employed to look at those issues. Strictly speaking, if it was receiving evidence, it might be argued in so far as it was not directly relevant to its sole and primary function – to determine people's status under the convention – it might be trespassing outside its remit.