2015-UNAT-596, Musleh
UNAT noted that, despite its Registry’s request for the Appellant to file an appeal brief, the Appellant failed to do so. UNAT noted that the Appellant was given the opportunity to improve his performance through the further extension of his appointment for an additional six months, but his performance had still not improved. UNAT held that there was no error in the conclusion of UNRWA DT that both the initial decision to extend the Appellant’s probationary period and the subsequent decision not to confirm his appointment were in compliance with his letter of appointment and UNRWA’s regulatory framework. UNAT held that the appeal had no merit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.
UNRWA DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decisions to extend his probationary period and not to confirm his appointment (for poor performance). UNDT dismissed the applications.
An appellant has the burden of satisfying UNAT that the judgment he or she seeks to challenge is defective. It follows that the appellant must identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment is defective.