Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.

Claim: The Taiwanese Ministry of Justice has imposed the following restrictions on Hong Kong citizens applying to emigrate to Taiwan:
1. Only accept family reunion applications from people with immediate family in Taiwan.
2. Only accept applications from professionals.
3. Only accept significant investors.

Q1: What has the Taiwanese Ministry of Justice said regarding this claim?
A1: a spokesperson for Taiwan’s National Immigration Agency told AFP in an email on June 30: “There’s no such information”. 

A spokesperson for Taiwan's Ministry of Justice also said the posts were "false" in an email to AFP on June 29.

Q2: Does the Taiwanese Ministry of Justice have rules in place for conditions that have to be met by Hong Kong nationals wanting residency in Taiwan?
A2: Yes, because The Taiwan government has Article 16, which lists 16 circumstances in which Hong Kong or Macao residents may apply for residency in Taiwan.

Q3: Does the Taiwanese Ministry of Justice have family reunion applications from people with immediate family in Taiwan as one of their circumstances under Article 16?
A3: Yes, because 1 listed requirement out of the 16 conditions are:

The direct blood relative or the spouse of the applicant has a household registration in Taiwan. However, in the case of adoption, the kinship should last for more than two years prior to application.

Q4: Does the Taiwanese Ministry of Justice have resident circumstances for professionals?
A4: Yes, because Out of the 16 circumstances in Article 16: 

2.The applicant has received overseas education or employment and made special contributions before the end of United Kingdom's and Portugal's governance in Hong Kong and Macao, respectively, which are reviewed and approved by the Ministry of Education or the Mainland Affairs Council in conjunction with relevant authorities.

3.The applicant has special achievements related to application engineering in special fields.

4.The applicant possesses technical skills and has obtained a certificate of practice from the Hong Kong or Macao government, or has special achievements in the fields of academic, science, culture, news, finance, insurance, securities, futures, transportation, postal service, telecommunications, meteorology or tourism.

6.The applicant is teaching abroad, researching emerging academics or having special skills and experience, which is approved by the central competent authority.

8.The applicant has been approved by the central labor authority or the competent authority the work in Taiwan, and meet the qualifications and criteria standards for foreigners undertaking the jobs specified under Article 46.1.1 to 46.1.7 or Article 11 of the Employment Services Act, or meet the management and approval regulations for Hong Kong and Macao residents with overseas Chinese I.D., or meet the qualifications and criteria standards for foreigners undertaking the jobs specified under Article 20, Article 5, Article 6.1, Article 8, and Article 10 of the Act for the Recruitment and Employment of Foreign Professionals.

9.The applicant has been appointed or employed by government agencies or public and private colleges and universities.

13.The applicant meets the qualifications and criteria standards for foreigners undertaking the jobs specified under Article 46.1.1 to 46.1.8 of the Employment Services Act.

Q5: Does the Taiwanese Ministry of Justice have resident circumstances for  significant investors?
A5: Yes, because Out of the 16 circumstances in Article 16: 

5.The applicant has an investment of NT$6 million or more in Taiwan, which is reviewed and approved by the central competent authority; or the innovation and entrepreneurship in Taiwan is examined and approved by the central competent authority.
user
justification: It seems from the Q&as that some of the requirements are correct, but they are not as cut and dry as in the claim, and they have cherry picked some details. 

verdict: 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'
assistant