186 visa refused: reading the decision, the ART review and whether to reapply

MARN 1576536 · Checked against the ART and the Migration Act on 8 November 2026

Which decision was refused

A 186 has two applications: the employer's nomination of the position and the worker's visa application. A visa cannot be granted without an approved nomination, so a refused nomination usually brings a refused visa with it, even though nothing was wrong with the worker's own evidence. Where the nomination was approved and only the visa refused, the problem lies in the worker's criteria. The decision record sets out which criterion was not met and the reasons, and it is the starting point for every next step.

Common reasons

• The nomination: the position not shown to be genuine, the salary not at the annual market salary rate or the threshold, or the business not shown to be operating as claimed. The genuine position guide covers the most frequent of these.
• Temporary Residence Transition employment: not enough qualifying time working for the sponsor in the occupation; since 7 December 2024 the requirement is two years. The TRT guide sets out what counts.
• Direct Entry skills and experience: no positive skills assessment, or not three years of relevant experience, unless an exemption applies.
• Age: 45 or over at lodgement without one of the listed exemptions. The age guide lists them.
• English: Competent English not shown in the required way or within the required time.
• Health, character or information issues: including any answer later found to be false or misleading.

ART review

A refused nomination can be reviewed by the Administrative Review Tribunal on the employer's application. A refused visa can generally be reviewed on the worker's application where the decision letter gives review rights, which it usually does for an applicant in Australia. The time limit is printed in the letter; for most decisions where the applicant is in Australia it is 28 days from notification, and 7 working days for someone in detention. The ART says it has no power to extend the time limit, and its application fee for most migration decisions is A$3,727, with a reduction possible in financial hardship. The Tribunal looks at the case afresh, including new evidence, and can send it back to the Department with a direction.

Review or reapply

The ART can take a long time, and the worker's position meanwhile matters. Where the refusal turned on something the employer and worker can now fix, such as missing evidence or a salary set below the market rate, a fresh nomination and application may be faster, provided the worker can lawfully lodge one. Where the refusal turned on something that cannot change, such as age at the time of application, a review or a different visa may be the only routes. Many cases need both decisions planned together, because lodging a review first can protect the worker's status while a new application is prepared. The ART guide explains the review process.

Staying lawful meanwhile

If the worker held a bridging visa because of the 186 application, it generally continues while a review is lodged in time and pending, and ends some time after the decision if no review is sought. A worker whose substantive visa has ended may also face a section 48 bar on some new applications from inside Australia. Both questions should be checked before the deadline passes. The section 48 guide covers the bar.

Get the decision read before the deadline

A consultation reads the decision record, confirms the deadline, and compares review, a new application and other visas for both the employer and the worker.

Book a consultation — A$330 inc. GST, credited

In other currencies: A$330 is about US$225, €205 or £170; A$550 is about US$380, €340 or £285 (approximate, November 2026).

General information only, current at 8 November 2026; not advice on your own case. Administrative Review Tribunal (fees and time limits); Migration Act 1958 s 347; Department of Home Affairs 186 criteria as summarised in the linked guides. Outcomes depend on the Department’s and the Tribunal’s assessment; no registered migration agent can guarantee a result (Code of Conduct, Migration Agents Regulations). Keshab Chapagain, MARN 1576536.