The point is it is not new evidence. It is a point of interpretation (based on statistical analysis) of the earlier EPA studies that was not argued at trial.
In a criminal case, it would be like trying to bring in a new expert after the trial to show it was not actually the defendants fingerprints on the murder weapon.
Iran not a USA lawyer so the exact operation of the system is not known to me But basic principles of justice alllow for a consideration of error as to fact and law in any appeal system It is clear post trial that error of fact in theDu trial were arrived at by her Not just a choice preferring one witnesses testimony over another’s As I understand theFC procedure the three judges can and indeed must consider whether there has been serious error of fact Singer has already and will further assert such Alm
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
