±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal, specifically whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members¡¯ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that while ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate the existence of any exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the appeal had been clearly defined and that there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and additional evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the Appellant had failed in his grounds of appeal...