2016-UNAT-659, Liu
UNAT held that UNDT had properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. UNAT held that there was no error in UNDT鈥檚 conclusion that the Appellant鈥檚 G-6 post, funded through government contributions, no longer exist on the 1st of August 2013, the day after the expiration of her appointment. UNAT held that the reason provided for the non-extension of appointment was supported by the evidence. UNAT agreed with UNDT鈥檚 finding that there was no evidence provided to support the allegation that the contested decision was ill-motivated. UNAT dismissed the appeal the...