State nomination refused or not selected: why, what review exists, reapplying, other states, and what it does to your visa

MARN 1576536

What a state refusal is

The 190 and 491 require a nomination by a state or territory government, and each state runs its programme under an arrangement with the Commonwealth that gives it an allocation of places and leaves the selection to it. A state assesses applications for nomination against its own published criteria, which include the Department's minimums and add the state's own requirements on occupation, residence, work, English, experience, commitment and sometimes a job offer, and decides whether to nominate. A refusal is the state's decision that the applicant did not meet its criteria or was not the applicant it chose for the place; it is a decision of a state agency under a state programme, communicated by the state with its reasons. The Department is not involved and makes no decision. The state nomination guide sets out each programme.

Refused against not selected

Most states run a two-stage process: a registration of interest, or the SkillSelect expression of interest itself, from which the state selects applicants and invites them to apply for nomination; and the application for nomination, which the state assesses and approves or refuses. An applicant who registers and is never selected has not been refused; the state has not reached them, because of the occupation, the score, the allocation or the state's priorities that round, and they remain in the pool, able to update the registration and to wait or to look elsewhere. An applicant who was invited, applied and was refused has a decision with reasons, and the state's rules on reapplying and any waiting period attach to it. The two feel the same and are not, and the first thing the applicant establishes is which they have. The not-invited guide covers the pool.

The reasons states give

• The occupation. Not on the state's list for the subclass, or on it with conditions the applicant did not meet, or the state's allocation for it exhausted for the year.
• Commitment to the state. The applicant lives or works in another state, has a job offer elsewhere, or could not show the intention to live in the nominating state that the state's declaration requires; this is the commonest reason for onshore applicants.
• The job offer. Where the state requires one, an offer that was not in the nominated occupation, not of the required duration or hours, not from an eligible employer, or not in the required region.
• The state's thresholds. English, experience, points or recent employment below the state's own requirement, which is often higher than the Department's and differs by occupation.
• Inconsistencies. A registration that claimed points, employment or residence the evidence did not support, which some states treat as a refusal and a bar on reapplying.
• The round. The state selected other applicants with higher scores or in higher-priority occupations, which is not a finding against the applicant and is often the real reason behind a generic letter.

The letter is read against the state's published criteria, and where the reason is unclear, the state is asked; most will say.

Why there is no Tribunal review

The Administrative Review Tribunal reviews decisions made under the Migration Act, by the Minister or the Department, that the Act makes reviewable: visa refusals, cancellations, nomination refusals by the Department of an employer's nomination. A state's decision not to nominate is not a decision under the Act and the Tribunal has no power over it; a visa application that depends on a state nomination has not been made, because the invitation never issued. The state's decision is in principle open to the state's own administrative law remedies, its ombudsman and judicial review in its courts, and in practice no applicant pursues them, because a fresh application answers the reasons faster. The absence of review is also the absence of consequence: no refusal is recorded against the applicant by the Department, and the question on every later form about visa refusals is answered as before.

The internal reviews some states offer

Several states provide an internal review or a request for reconsideration of a nomination refusal, by a different officer, within a short period from the decision, commonly a matter of weeks, on the ground that the decision was wrong on the facts or the criteria were misapplied; some confine it to applicants who can show an error rather than new evidence. The letter says whether a review is available and by when. A review is worth lodging where the state has misread the evidence, miscounted experience, misapplied its own list, or overlooked a document, and it is lodged inside the period with the error identified; it is not a vehicle for the application that should have been made the first time, and a state that finds the original decision right confirms it. Where the state offers no review, the route is a fresh application.

Reapplying to the same state

A state that refused will consider a fresh application, and most say so, with two qualifications: some impose a waiting period after a refusal, a number of months, before a new registration is accepted, and all expect the new application to answer the reason for the old one. An applicant refused for commitment who has since moved to the state, taken a job there and signed a lease has a different application; one refused for an occupation not on the list has the same application unless the list has changed; one refused for an exhausted allocation applies again in July when the new year's places open. A state that refused for inconsistencies between the registration and the evidence may decline to consider the applicant again, and the second application to that state is made with that in mind. The applicant asks the state its rule on reapplying rather than assuming, because the states differ and change.

Applying to other states

Nothing in the migration law or the states' arrangements prevents an applicant from registering with every state whose list includes their occupation, at the same time, and an applicant refused by one state registers with the others at once. Each state's list, criteria and allocation are its own, and the occupation one state has closed is often open in another; the commitment reason that defeated an application to a state the applicant has never lived in does not arise with the state where they live. Some states ask whether the applicant has been refused by another and weigh the answer; the answer is given truthfully and the reasons explained. The 491's regional nominations are more widely available than the 190's, and an applicant refused a 190 by a capital-city state often finds a 491 in a regional one. The state tracker shows which programmes are open.

The expression of interest and the visa

The expression of interest in SkillSelect is untouched by a state's refusal: it continues for its two years, remains visible to every state and to the 189 rounds, and is updated with any change, including a change of the state preferred. The applicant's current visa, whatever it is, is unaffected, and no bridging visa or expiry is engaged, because no visa application was made. A refusal by a state is not a visa refusal for the purposes of any later form, the section 48 bar, or the exclusion periods, and it is not disclosed on a later visa application unless a question asks about state nominations, which the standard forms do not.

The routes that need no state

• The 189, by invitation in the rounds, for an occupation on the medium and long-term list at a competitive score.
• The family-sponsored 491, where an eligible relative in a designated regional area sponsors, with fifteen points and no state.
• Employer sponsorship, the 482 or 494 by nomination and the 186 after, which needs an employer and no points.
• A Designated Area Migration Agreement, where a regional employer party to an agreement nominates with its concessions.

The 491 guide sets out the family-sponsored stream, and the removed-occupation guide the position when the occupation itself is the obstacle.

Book a consultation — $330 inc. GST, credited

General information only, current at October 2026; not advice on your own case. Subclasses 190 and 491 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 and the review provisions of Part 5 of the Migration Act 1958, as in force at the date above; the states’ and territories’ nomination criteria, review processes, waiting periods and allocations are their own, change through the year, and the current published position of each programme governs. Outcomes depend on the states’ selections and the Department’s assessment; no registered migration agent can guarantee a nomination (Code of Conduct, Migration Agents Regulations). Keshab Chapagain, MARN 1576536.