482 Nomination Refusal — Sponsor and Worker
When a Subclass 482 (Skilled in Demand) nomination is refused, the immediate impact lands on both the sponsoring business and the worker. The sponsor faces the cost and time invested in a refused application; the worker — often onshore on a bridging visa — faces uncertainty about their lawful status. Merits review to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) is generally available to the sponsor, within strict statutory time limits.
MARN 1576536
Sponsor must lodge the review — and quickly. The review deadline (typically 21 days from notification) is statutory and cannot be extended. If the sponsor does not lodge, the nomination decision stands. Outcomes cannot be guaranteed — each case turns on its specific facts and evidence (s 15, Migration Agents Code of Conduct 2022).
Common refusal reasons
- Annual Market Salary Rate (AMSR) — pay rate not evidenced as at or above the market rate for that occupation in that location, or AMSR comparator data not accepted
- TSMIT — where Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold applies, salary below the threshold
- SAF levy — Skilling Australians Fund levy not paid or not evidenced
- Genuine position — insufficient evidence the role is genuine, real, and necessary in the business; or position not aligned with the business's actual operations
- ANZSCO match — duties of the position not matching the nominated ANZSCO occupation
- Sponsor concerns — business viability, training requirements, or sponsor obligations issues
Sponsor lodges the review
For a 482 nomination refusal, the sponsor (the nominator) holds the merits review rights — not the worker. The sponsor lodges the review with the ART within the statutory deadline, pays the lodgement fee, and represents the matter to the Tribunal. The worker is often called as a witness but cannot lodge the nomination review themselves. Coordination between the sponsor's legal/migration representative and the worker's representative (if separate) is essential.
Impact on the worker
If the worker is onshore on a bridging visa linked to a 482 application that depends on the refused nomination:
- If the sponsor lodges a review, the worker's bridging visa typically continues lawful status while review is pending (subject to bridging visa class and circumstances)
- If the sponsor does NOT lodge a review within the deadline, the worker's 482 application generally fails — the worker's lawful status may end shortly after
- The worker may have alternative pathways (different employer, different visa subclass) — but s 48 bar considerations often apply onshore
Fresh nomination vs review — when each makes sense
In some 482 nomination refusals, lodging a fresh nomination with substantially better AMSR evidence and corrected procedural documentation is faster than ART review. In others — particularly where the Department's reasoning involves a substantive legal disagreement about position genuineness or ANZSCO mapping — ART review is the right path. The choice depends on the specific refusal reasons, the worker's lawful status urgency, and the sponsor's appetite for time and cost.
Frequently asked questions
Who can apply to review a 482 nomination refusal?
Generally the sponsoring business (the nominator) holds the merits review rights for a nomination refusal — not the worker. The sponsor lodges the review with the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) within the deadline stated on the decision notice. If the sponsor does not lodge a review, the nomination decision stands and the worker's associated visa application typically cannot proceed on that nomination.
What are the common reasons 482 nominations are refused?
Common refusal patterns include: failure to evidence Annual Market Salary Rate (AMSR) — pay rate at or above the market rate for the role in the location, with comparator data accepted by the Department; failure to meet the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold (TSMIT) where it applies; SAF (Skilling Australians Fund) levy not paid or evidenced; insufficient genuine position evidence (real role, real need, role aligns with ANZSCO); occupational duties not matching the nominated ANZSCO code; or sponsor approval issues or business viability concerns.
What's the 21-day deadline?
For most reviewable migration decisions, the time limit to lodge a review with the ART is 21 calendar days from the day the sponsor is taken to be notified of the decision. The decision letter states the exact deadline applicable. This is statutory — the ART does not have power to extend it, except in narrow specified circumstances. Do not rely on extensions. The 21-day clock starts from notification, not from when the document is opened or read.
What happens to the worker while review is pending?
If the worker is onshore and their visa application is linked to the refused nomination, they typically remain on a bridging visa while review is pending — provided the sponsor lodges the review and the worker hasn't separately had their associated 482 application finalised against them. The specific effect on the worker's lawful status depends on the application stage, the bridging visa class, and the order of decisions. Coordinate the worker's status response with the sponsor's review strategy.
Can WIDEN advise both the sponsor and the worker?
Yes, in many situations, with appropriate written disclosure of any potential conflict of interest (s 19, Migration Agents Code of Conduct 2022) and informed consent from both parties. In some matters — particularly where the sponsor and worker's interests diverge — separate representation is required. WIDEN assesses each case for conflict at the outset and proceeds only with written disclosure and consent where it's appropriate.
Should we lodge a fresh nomination instead of seeking review?
Sometimes. If the refusal reasons are addressable in a fresh nomination (for example, by gathering better AMSR evidence or correcting a procedural issue) and the worker's situation supports a fresh approach, a new nomination may be faster than ART review. Other times — particularly where the Department's reasoning involves a substantive issue best resolved at the ART — review is the better path. The decision depends on the specific refusal reasons and the worker's lawful status. Get a clear-eyed assessment before choosing.
Can WIDEN guarantee a successful nomination review?
No. No registered migration agent can guarantee any review outcome (s 15, Migration Agents Code of Conduct 2022). The ART assesses each case on its merits based on the evidence and the law. What an experienced agent does is identify the strongest available grounds, gather the right evidence (especially AMSR comparators, position genuineness evidence, ANZSCO mapping), and represent the case competently. The outcome is the ART's decision.
Send WIDEN a confidential enquiry
Related
- 482 Skills in Demand visa guide
- Sponsor a worker (482 / 186) — full service
- Sponsorship cost calculator
- ART review process (overview)
General information only. Refusal, cancellation, and review processes are governed by the Migration Act 1958 and associated regulations; specific procedures and time limits depend on the visa subclass and the decision involved. Verify your individual deadlines and pathway on the original decision notice and on the Department of Home Affairs and Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) websites.
This page does not constitute migration advice (s 23, Migration Agents Code of Conduct 2022). Outcomes in refusal and review matters cannot be guaranteed by any registered migration agent (s 15). Each case turns on its specific facts and evidence. Migration advice is provided by Keshab Chapagain (MARN 1576536) only after a paid initial consultation under section 43 of the Code, with a written service agreement issued before further work commences (section 42). The OMARA Consumer Guide is provided to all clients before the consultation begins. PI insurance held under the Migration Agents Regulations 1998. Complaints via our Complaints Policy or directly to OMARA.