Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral argument and then considered the merits of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the requirements of Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute were not fulfilled in the Appellant¡¯s case as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the evidence showed that the Administration was involved in a process of revision of activities in Iraq, rationalizing of staff, realignment of functions, and reduction of budget. These administrative activities led to the redeployment of the post encumbered by the Appellant from Kirkuk to Baghdad. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the Appellant never expressed his willingness to accept a similar appointment in Baghdad and he did not participate in the written assessment to remain in Kirkuk. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Assistance Mission for Iraq (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI) advertised three job openings for Associate Political Affairs Officer positions at the NPO-A level in Baghdad and the Appellant did not apply to any of them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that the 2014 budget proposal or communications with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI management throughout 2012 and 2013 gave rise to a legitimate expectation of renewal in the Appellant¡¯s case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT shared Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s view that the contested decision was not ill-motivated or taken in bad faith and found no fault with its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly dismissed the appeal in its entirety and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment.