Refusals & appeals · Genuine position
Genuine Position Refusal — When the Department Doubts the Role
A genuine position refusal is a judgement about the role, not the worker: the Department was not satisfied a real, necessary position matching the nominated occupation exists in the business. It is one of the most common — and most recoverable — nomination refusal grounds, because it usually turns on how the position was evidenced rather than on whether it exists.
Keshab Chapagain · MARN 1576536 · Registered since 2015 - ART review deadline
- 21 days
- Who lodges the review
- The sponsor
- Most common fix
- Stronger position evidence
MARN 1576536
Refused? Get a refusal assessment — before your deadline.
A focused review by a registered migration agent (MARN 1576536) of your refusal decision and your options — why it failed, your realistic prospects at the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), your deadline, and whether to appeal, re-apply, or stop. Time limits are short and rarely extended, so don't wait.
The sponsor must act — 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 and the worker's associated visa application generally cannot proceed on it. Outcomes cannot be guaranteed — each case turns on its specific facts and evidence (s 15, Migration (Migration Agents Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021).
What the genuine position criterion asks
For an employer-sponsored nomination (482 or 186), the Department must be satisfied the nominated position is genuine: that the business genuinely needs someone performing the duties of the nominated ANZSCO occupation, that the role exists within the business's actual operations rather than on paper, and that it was not created to secure a migration outcome. The delegate assesses this from the whole nomination pack — the position description, the Genuine Position Statement, organisational charts, financials, the business's industry and scale, and consistency across all of it.
Why nominations fail it
- Generic position description — ANZSCO tasks copied verbatim rather than describing what the person will actually do in this business
- Duties–occupation mismatch — the described work sits below the skill level of, or outside, the nominated occupation
- Scale concerns — the role looks out of proportion to the business's size, revenue or staffing (a small business nominating a specialist manager it has never employed before)
- Structural inconsistency — organisational charts, payroll records and the nomination telling different stories about who does what
- Industry fit — the business's operations not obviously requiring the occupation, with no explanation bridging the gap
- Cross-document inconsistency — the GPS, financials, advertising and contracts contradicting each other on duties, hours or reporting lines
Most of these are evidentiary failures, not fatal facts about the business — which is why genuine-position refusals are often recoverable with a properly built case.
ART review vs a fresh nomination
The sponsor holds the review rights and must lodge with the ART within the statutory deadline. But review is not always the best path. If the position is real and the refusal reflects thin or inconsistent evidence, a fresh nomination — with a substantially stronger Genuine Position Statement, a tailored position description and consistent supporting documents — can be faster than the ART queue. Where the Department's reasoning involves a substantive judgement that better paperwork alone won't shift, review is often the right forum. The worker's lawful status, any s 48 bar considerations, and the sponsor's time and cost appetite all bear on the choice; get a clear-eyed assessment before committing to either path.
Building a stronger position case
- A specific GPS — why this business needs this role now: growth, contracts, capability gaps, succession — evidenced, not asserted
- A tailored position description — the actual duties, mapped honestly to the nominated ANZSCO occupation
- Consistent structure — organisational chart, payroll and reporting lines that agree with the nomination
- Business context — financials and operational evidence that make the role's existence unsurprising
- Answering the decision letter — where a refusal has already happened, the new case must engage with the delegate's specific reasoning, not restate the old material
For migration agents — white-label GPS after a refusal
A large share of WIDEN's B2B work is genuine-position recovery for fellow agents: the GPS drafting service ($600 + GST, five working days, editable Word with your formatting) exists precisely for fresh nominations after a genuineness refusal. The same workflow is taught as an OMARA-approved CPD series on preparing a defensible 482 nomination, and a pre-lodgement audit catches the cross-document inconsistencies that trigger these refusals before the Department does.
Send WIDEN a confidential enquiry
Related
- 482 nomination refusal — the full picture
- Genuine Position Statement for a 482 — what to include
- 482 position description requirements
- GPS drafting for agents — $600 + GST
- 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 (Migration Agents Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021). 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 2026. Complaints via our Complaints Policy or directly to OMARA.
Questions we get asked first
What does a genuine position refusal mean?
The Department was not satisfied the nominated position is genuine — that a real, necessary role matching the nominated ANZSCO occupation exists within the business's actual operations. This is a judgement about the position, not the worker: the delegate concluded the role as described was created or inflated to secure a visa outcome, or that the evidence didn't demonstrate the business genuinely needs someone performing those duties at that skill level.
Why are nominations refused on genuine position grounds?
Common patterns include: a generic position description not tailored to the business; duties that don't match the nominated ANZSCO occupation; a role that looks out of scale with the business's size, revenue or structure; organisational charts inconsistent with other documents; the business's industry not obviously requiring the occupation; inconsistencies between the nomination, the business's financials and its public footprint; and prior workers in the role on materially different duties. Delegates read the whole pack together — inconsistency across documents is often the trigger.
Who holds the review rights?
The sponsoring business (the nominator) generally 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 on the decision notice (typically 21 days from notification, and the ART cannot extend it except in narrow specified circumstances).
Should we seek ART review or lodge a fresh nomination?
It depends on the refusal reasoning and the worker's status. If the position is genuine and the problem is evidentiary — the role was real but poorly documented — a fresh nomination with a properly constructed Genuine Position Statement, consistent organisational evidence and a tailored position description is often faster than the ART queue. If the Department's reasoning involves a substantive disagreement about the business or the role that better evidence alone won't shift, ART review may be the right path. The worker's lawful status and any s 48 considerations also bear on the choice.
What is a Genuine Position Statement (GPS)?
A structured document that makes the case the position is genuine: why the business needs the role, how the duties map to the nominated ANZSCO occupation, where the position sits in the organisational structure, and how it connects to the business's operations and plans. It is not a template exercise — an effective GPS is specific to the business and consistent with every other document in the pack. A weak or generic GPS is one of the most common features of genuine-position refusals.
I'm a migration agent — can WIDEN draft the GPS for my client's fresh nomination?
Yes. WIDEN prepares Genuine Position Statements for fellow agents on a documents-only, white-label basis — $600 + GST, five working days, delivered in editable Word with your formatting. Your client stays yours; you review and lodge. This is a common engagement after a genuine-position refusal, where the fresh nomination needs a substantially stronger position case than the first attempt.
Can WIDEN guarantee the review or fresh nomination will succeed?
No. No registered migration agent can guarantee any outcome (s 15, Migration (Migration Agents Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021). The ART assesses each case on its merits, and a fresh nomination is assessed on its evidence. What an experienced agent does is diagnose the actual refusal reasoning, gather evidence that answers it, and present a consistent, specific position case. The outcome is the decision-maker's.
Keep reading