The nomination was approved and the visa was refused: what the employer does next, and whether to appeal, re-apply or start again with someone else

MARN 1576536

Why the nomination and the visa are decided separately

The 482 is three applications: the sponsorship, which is about the business; the nomination, which is about the position, the salary, the labour market testing and the genuineness of the need, and which identifies the worker; and the visa, which is about the worker, their English, their skills and experience in the occupation, their health, their character and their history. The Department decides the nomination and the visa on their own criteria, often by different officers, and approves the nomination before turning to the visa, so an approved nomination says the position is one the business may fill with a sponsored worker and says nothing about whether this worker meets the visa criteria. An employer that reads the approval as the end of the risk is surprised by the refusal; an employer that had the worker's side read before it paid the levy is not, which is the reason the deciding guide puts the worker's eligibility first.

What the refusal means for the approved nomination

The visa refusal does not refuse, withdraw or cancel the nomination, which remains approved on the Department's record. But an approved 482 nomination has a life: it ceases, in the ordinary case, twelve months after it was approved if no visa has been granted under it, when the sponsor withdraws it, when the sponsorship it depends on ends, or in the circumstances the regulations set for a visa application under it being finally refused, and the Department's practice on whether a fresh visa application by the same worker can be identified in the existing approval, as against a new nomination being required, is the first thing read after a refusal. What is clear is that the approval does not wait indefinitely, that review at the tribunal runs for months and can run past the nomination's life, and that a nomination used for a different worker is a nomination for the same position on the same terms, which the Department may or may not accept depending on how the nomination identified the worker. The employer with an approved nomination and a refused visa is holding an asset that depreciates, and the decision in the last section is made with that in mind.

The grounds a 482 visa is refused on

• English. The worker did not hold a test result at the required level, or the result was out of date, or the exemption claimed did not apply. Fixable by a passed test, after which a fresh application or review on the new result is realistic.
• Skills and experience. The worker did not show the work experience in the occupation or a closely related field that the stream requires, or the references did not evidence it, or the qualification did not match the occupation. Fixable where the experience exists and was badly evidenced; not fixable where it does not.
• A mandatory skills assessment. For certain occupations and passport countries the visa requires a skills assessment the worker did not hold. Fixable by obtaining it, which takes months.
• Health. The worker or a family member failed the health requirement, which for a 482 can be waived in some cases. Sometimes fixable through the waiver; the levy is refunded on this ground.
• Character. The worker failed or did not pass the character test. Rarely fixable; the levy is refunded on this ground, and the criminal record guide covers the test.
• False or misleading information, or a bogus document. Public interest criterion 4020. Not fixable in the ordinary case, and it bars the worker from most visas for three years; an employer whose worker was refused on this ground does not re-apply with them.
• A bar on applying. A worker in Australia whose earlier visa was refused or cancelled may have been barred from applying for a 482 onshore under section 48, which makes the application invalid or refused. Fixable only by applying from outside Australia, and the bridging visa guide sets out the bar.
• Genuineness and other criteria. The worker's intention, the worker's immigration history, or a condition on the worker's current visa, such as a no-further-stay condition that was not waived.

Reading the decision record

The refusal is a written decision with reasons, sent to the worker and, where the sponsor was the authorised recipient or the application was made offshore under its nomination, to the sponsor, and it states the criterion not met, the evidence considered, any request for information the worker did not answer and the review rights and period. The employer asks the worker for it on the day it arrives, because the review period runs from notification and is short, and reads three things: the ground, whether the ground is one that can now be met or evidenced, and whether the refusal records anything that will follow the worker into the next application, a finding of false information, an adverse credibility finding, an unanswered request. A refusal for a document the worker had and did not supply reads very differently from a refusal for a qualification the worker does not have, and the decision between the routes below is made on that reading, not on the fact of the refusal.

Review at the tribunal, and who seeks it

A 482 visa refusal is reviewable at the Administrative Review Tribunal in two situations, and which one applies decides who lodges. Where the worker was in Australia when the application was made, the worker is the applicant for review, lodged within the period stated in the decision, and the employer supports it with the evidence the business holds. Where the worker was outside Australia, the refusal is reviewable because the worker was nominated by an approved sponsor, and the review is sought by the sponsor, in the sponsor's name, within the period, which is the situation most employers do not know they are in until the period has nearly run. The tribunal decides the criteria afresh on the evidence before it at the hearing, so a refusal on a point that can now be evidenced, a test passed, a reference obtained, a skills assessment granted, is commonly set aside, and the matter is sent back for the visa to be granted; a refusal on a point that cannot change is affirmed. Review takes months, during which an onshore worker holds a bridging visa and an offshore worker waits, and the tribunal guide sets out the process, the fee and the evidence.

A fresh visa application: the same nomination or a new one

The alternative to review is a fresh 482 application by the same worker with the ground fixed, which is often faster than the tribunal and is the ordinary route where the refusal was for something now in hand. A fresh application must be identified in an approved nomination that is in effect when it is made; whether the existing approval carries it depends on the state of that approval after the refusal and on the Department's practice, and where it does not, the employer lodges a new nomination for the same position, with the nomination charge and the levy again, and the fresh visa application against that. A worker who was in Australia when refused may be barred from making the fresh application onshore and may have to apply from outside Australia, which changes the timeline and the worker's work rights in the meantime; a worker offshore applies again from there. The ground must be fixed before the fresh application is lodged, with the decision record in front of whoever prepares it, because a second refusal on the same ground is adverse history the worker carries and money the employer has paid twice.

The worker onshore whose bridging visa is ending

A worker who applied for the 482 in Australia holds a bridging visa that was granted with the application and that ends a set period after the refusal is notified, in the ordinary case 35 days, unless an application for review is made within the review period, in which case a bridging visa continues until the review is decided and carries the work rights the earlier one had. A worker who does not seek review and does not leave by the end of the period becomes unlawful, and an employer who continues to employ them is employing an unlawful worker, which is an offence for the employer regardless of the sponsorship. The employer checks VEVO when the refusal arrives and again at the end of the period, and the VEVO guide covers the check; a worker who seeks review keeps working for the business on the bridging visa while it runs, which is often the reason review is chosen over a fresh application for an onshore worker even where the fresh application would be faster, and the consultation weighs the two.

The nomination charge, the levy and the worker's charge

The nomination charge is not refunded on a visa refusal. The Skilling Australians Fund levy paid with the nomination is refunded, on the sponsor's written request, where the visa was refused on health or character grounds, and is not refunded where it was refused on any other ground, including English and skills, which are the commonest; a nomination then used for a fresh application by the same worker or for another candidate does not attract the levy again where the existing approval carries it, and does where a new nomination is required. The worker's visa application charge, A$4,015 for the main applicant at the time of writing, is not refunded on a refusal, and if the employer paid it for the worker it is the employer's loss; the tribunal fee for review is the applicant's, refundable in part where the review succeeds. The levy guide sets out the refund cases and the claim.

Appeal, re-apply, or another candidate

The employer has three routes and chooses on the ground, the worker's location and the business's timeline. Review suits a refusal on a point that can be evidenced now, an onshore worker who needs to keep working while it runs, and a case where the Department's reasoning was wrong on the evidence it had; it is slow. A fresh application suits a refusal on a point now fixed, a worker who can lodge again without a bar, and a business that wants the worker in months rather than a year; it costs the visa charge again and, where a new nomination is needed, the nomination charge and the levy. Another candidate suits a refusal on a ground that will not change, a worker who has lost the business's confidence in the process, and a position that must be filled by a date the other routes cannot meet; whether the approved nomination can be used for the new candidate, or a new one lodged, is read first. An employer that chooses on sentiment, appealing a hopeless refusal because the worker is liked, or abandoning a fixable one because the refusal was a shock, pays for it, and the consultation exists to make the choice on the record.

The employer's checklist after a visa refusal

1. Get the decision record from the worker on the day it arrives and note the review period and who may apply.
2. Identify the ground and sort it: fixable now, fixable in time, or not fixable.
3. Read the nomination's remaining life and whether it can carry a fresh application or another candidate.
4. For an onshore worker, check VEVO and the bridging visa end date, and decide on review inside the period if the worker is to keep working.
5. Claim the levy refund if the ground was health or character; do not expect the nomination charge back.
6. Choose review, a fresh application or another candidate on the ground and the timeline, and do not lodge a second application until the ground is fixed.

General information only, current at October 2026; not advice on your own case. The subclass 482 visa criteria in Schedule 2 and the public interest criteria in Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994, the nomination provisions in Division 2.17 including the circumstances in which a nomination approval ceases, the review provisions in Part 5 of the Migration Act 1958 including the review rights of an approved sponsor, section 48, the bridging visa provisions, and the refund circumstances for the nomination training contribution charge, as in force at the date above; charge figures are indicative and the Department’s current price list governs. Outcomes depend on the Department’s and the tribunal’s assessment of each application; no registered migration agent can guarantee a result (Code of Conduct, Migration Agents Regulations). Keshab Chapagain, MARN 1576536.