¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant’s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant’s failure to file his application within the established time limits. UNAT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before UNDT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. UNAT held that failing to provide the information to UNDT, and then seeking to provide UNAT with an explanation for the delay, amounted to an attempt to have a de novo hearing of his application. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute and he had not identified any errors or failure of jurisdiction by UNDT to warrant reversal of the judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.