## Ms. “PP”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Applicant’s Second Request for Provisional Relief), IMFAT Order No. 2020-1 (January 13, 2020)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Ms. “PP”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Applicant’s Second Request for Provisional Relief), IMFAT Order No. 2020-1 (January 13, 2020)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2020-1-summary.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2020-1-summary.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2020-1-summary.pdf.json)

---

### Background and procedural history
- Applicant challenged “disciplinary” and “administrative” decisions of the Director of the Human Resources Department (HRD) relating to a finding of misconduct concerning the treatment of a G-5 household employee.
- The “administrative” decision:
  - (a) directed Applicant to end the employment of a different G-5 employee who remained employed in Applicant’s household; and
  - (b) stated that the Fund would not be able to support applications made by Applicant for G-5 visas in the future.
- Applicant previously sought provisional relief in IMFAT Order No. 2019-1 (October 10, 2019), which denied her first request for provisional relief. That first request sought:
  - (1) prohibiting the Fund from requiring [the current G-5 employee]’s dismissal from [Applicant]’s home during the pendency of this case; and
  - (2) requiring the Fund to secure all necessary visa actions by the State Department (e.g. an I94 renewal) to permit [the G-5 employee]’s continued employment by [Applicant] during the pendency of this case.

### Applicant’s Second Request for Provisional Relief
- Applicant sought an order that the Fund:
  - transmit the I-94 application to USCIS so that the U.S. Government can decide the issue of [the G-5 employees]’s visa.
- Tribunal’s observations and reasoning:
  - The Second Request bore a strong resemblance to the second prong of the first request denied in Order No. 2019-1.
  - In Order No. 2019-1 the Tribunal had denied that part of the first request on the ground that it did not seek suspension of a decision contested in the Tribunal.
  - Applicant asserted the Fund’s refusal to convey the I-94 application was “part and parcel of the HRD Director’s decision challenged in the Application.”
  - The Tribunal stated that, even assuming the decision from which Applicant now sought provisional relief was “part and parcel” of the decision contested in the Application, the new request would still fail because it suffered from the same defects as the earlier denied request. (Para. 14.)
  - Applicant did not substantiate that the new request “ materially differ[ed]” from her earlier request. (Para. 17.)
  - Applicant did not offer additional evidence showing she met the essential requirement for provisional relief: to show that “‘irreparable harm’ will result in the absence of the relief she seeks.” (Para. 17.)
  - Applicant did not establish a basis for the Tribunal to conclude she may raise a claim for provisional relief on the grounds of alleged “irreparable harm” to the G-5 employee.
  - The Tribunal emphasized that provisional relief is an “extraordinary measure that the Tribunal will order only in limited circumstances.” (Para. 16.)
  - Provisional relief is an exception to the ordinary rule in Article VI, Section 4, of the Statute that the filing of an application shall not have the effect of suspending the implementation of the decision contested.
  - The Tribunal noted that principles underlying the finality of the Tribunal’s Judgments—“promoting judicial economy and certainty among the parties”—counselled against re-opening questions already resolved by Order No. 2019-1.

- Tribunal disposition on the Second Request:
  - Applicant’s Second Request for Provisional Relief was denied.

### Request for Reasonable Compensation by the Fund
- The Fund brought a Request for Reasonable Compensation pursuant to Article XV of the Tribunal’s Statute, seeking an order that Applicant bear the Fund’s costs associated with responding to Applicant’s Second Request for Provisional Relief, which the Fund contended was “manifestly without foundation” in terms of Article XV.
- Tribunal’s disposition on the compensation request:
  - The Tribunal deferred a decision on the Request for Reasonable Compensation.
  - The Tribunal concluded it would be better positioned to weigh the considerations raised by the Fund’s Request at a later stage of the proceedings.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2020-1-summary.pdf_