Shrestha v Minister for Immigration

In *Shrestha v Minister for Immigration*, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the Migration Review Tribunal. The core of the dispute concerned the Tribunal's conduct and reasoning in its assessment of the applicant's case.

The Federal Circuit Court was required to determine whether the Migration Review Tribunal had provided sufficiently clear particulars in its decision, whether it had given adequate consideration to the relevant policies and procedures outlined in PAM3 (Procedures Advice Manual 3), and whether the Court retained the power to make additional orders after it had become *functus officio*.

Judge Street reasoned that the Tribunal's decision sufficiently articulated the particulars of its findings, and that it had indeed had regard to PAM3. The Court found that it was *functus officio* and therefore could not make further orders beyond those already determined.

Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the First Respondent's costs fixed at $3416.