When a employer nomination scheme visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 61 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the permanent employer-sponsored skilled visa. Here is what actually happened in them, straight from the published record.
These figures describe decisions that have already been made. Every case turns on its own facts and evidence, so they are a picture of the past, not a prediction. This is general information, not migration advice.
How to read these decisions
The Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) reviews decisions made by the Department of Home Affairs. Until 14 October 2024 it was called the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). When someone is refused a visa or has one cancelled, they can often ask the tribunal to look at the decision again.
- Upheld / Affirmed
- The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stands (the applicant lost).
- Set aside
- The tribunal disagreed with the original decision and replaced it (the applicant won).
- Remitted
- The case was sent back to Home Affairs to decide again, with directions (a fresh chance for the applicant).
- Overturned
- The original decision was reversed. On these pages we group overturned decisions under "Set aside" above.
Citations follow a simple pattern: [2026] ARTA 315 means decision number 315 of the tribunal in 2026. Older decisions use AAT in place of ARTA.
What the tribunal decided
Across these 61 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 67% of the time, set it aside 7% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 25% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Upheld | 36 | 59.0% |
| Remitted | 15 | 24.6% |
| Affirmed | 5 | 8.2% |
| Set aside | 4 | 6.6% |
| Dismissed | 1 | 1.6% |
Counts from 61 decisions captured by our pipeline, as at 2026-06-28. Outcome is the result recorded in each decision.
Decisions by year
How many decisions our pipeline holds for each year, and how often the original decision was set aside that year.
| Year | Decisions | Set aside |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 8 | 0% |
| 2025 | 5 | 20% |
| 2024 | 48 | 6% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 6 decisions on this topic that record their citations. The number is how many of those decisions cite it.
Recent decisions
The 40 most recent decisions on this topic. Select a decision to read the full stored case story: the situation, the question before the tribunal, and what the tribunal established, straight from the record.
[2026] ARTA 11092026-06-16DismissedThe applicant was not entitled to make an application for review under s 500(1) of the Migration Act 1958 because he was not physically present in the migration zone…
The result
The review ended without a decision on the merits (dismissed, refused or withdrawn).
The situation
The applicant, a UK citizen, had his subclass 186 visa cancelled on character grounds and was outside the migration zone when he lodged his application for review.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant was not entitled to make an application for review under s 500(1) of the Migration Act 1958 because he was not physically present in the migration zone when the application was made.
What the tribunal established
A non-citizen must be physically present in the migration zone to make an application for review under s 500(1) of the Migration Act 1958.
[2026] ARTA 9632026-05-05AffirmedWhether the nominated Cook position was still available to the applicant to satisfy clause 186.223(4) of the Migration Regulations.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The primary applicant sought a subclass 186 Temporary Residence Transition visa for a Cook position with Radhe Australia Pty Ltd, but the employer ceased operations and the applicant worked for other employers.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the nominated Cook position was still available to the applicant to satisfy clause 186.223(4) of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Clause 186.223(4) requires that the position be the one that was the subject of the nomination with the nominating employer; it is not satisfied by a similar role with a different employer.
[2026] ARTA 6002026-04-14AffirmedThe applicant's character was in dispute due to his conviction for a sexual offence against a minor.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Colombian citizen, was refused an Employer Nomination visa due to character concerns related to a sexual offence against his stepdaughter.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's character was in dispute due to his conviction for a sexual offence against a minor.
What the tribunal established
A non-citizen who has engaged in sexual related offending against a child may be considered a risk to the Australian community.
[2026] ARTA 9002026-04-09AffirmedWhether the PTE Academic Online test result satisfies clause 186.222 and regulation 1.15C as required by IMMI 15/005.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The family applied for Employer Nomination Scheme (Subclass 186) visas, with the primary applicant needing to demonstrate Competent English.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the PTE Academic Online test result satisfies clause 186.222 and regulation 1.15C as required by IMMI 15/005.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must apply the law as enacted and cannot add criteria; only language tests expressly specified in IMMI 15/005 (e.g., PTE Academic) are acceptable evidence of Competent English.
[2026] ARTA 6332026-03-09AffirmedThe issue in dispute was whether the applicant had an approved nomination for the position of ICT Business Analyst, which was required for the grant of the visa.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants, a family of four, applied for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas under the Temporary Residence Transition stream, but were refused due to the lack of an approved nomination.
The question before the tribunal
The issue in dispute was whether the applicant had an approved nomination for the position of ICT Business Analyst, which was required for the grant of the visa.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal applied the principle that a visa applicant must have an approved nomination to be eligible for a Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream.
[2026] ARTA 3052026-03-06UpheldThe central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s. 501CA(4) of the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a national of India, had his Class EN Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS) visa mandatorily cancelled due to a criminal conviction. The Tribunal reviewed the decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s. 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, considering Ministerial Direction 110.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa cancellation under s. 501CA, the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community generally outweighs other considerations, as per Ministerial Direction 110.
[2026] ARTA 6982026-03-05AffirmedThe applicant failed to satisfy clause 186.233(2) requiring an approved nomination for the position.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A carpenter applied for a Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream but did not have an approved nomination.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant failed to satisfy clause 186.233(2) requiring an approved nomination for the position.
What the tribunal established
A Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream can only be granted if the applicant has an approved nomination that meets clause 186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
[2026] ARTA 2492026-02-10RemittedThe central issue was whether Mr Norgen Pakhrin met the health criteria in PIC 4007 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations, specifically cl 186.224(2) of Schedule 2.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicants sought Employer Nomination (Permanent) visas (Subclass 186). The delegate refused the visas because Mr Norgen Pakhrin did not meet the health criteria in PIC 4007.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether Mr Norgen Pakhrin met the health criteria in PIC 4007 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations, specifically cl 186.224(2) of Schedule 2.
What the tribunal established
A minor born in Australia and ordinarily resident in Australia is not subject to the health criteria in PIC 4007 for the purposes of cl 186.224(2) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
[2025] ARTA 25102025-11-25Set asideThe central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly applied the character test and considered the relevant factors, including Direction no. 110, in deciding…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant sought review of the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their Class EN (Subclass 186) Employer Nomination Scheme visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly applied the character test and considered the relevant factors, including Direction no. 110, in deciding not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501, the decision-maker must consider the primary and other considerations outlined in Direction 110, including the protection of the Australian community and the applicant's ties to Australia.
[2025] ARTA 29032025-11-18RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant's family member met the health criteria under PIC 4007 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations, specifically concerning…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicants sought Employer Nomination (Permanent) visas (Subclass 186). The delegate refused the visas because a family member did not meet the health criteria in PIC 4007 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant's family member met the health criteria under PIC 4007 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations, specifically concerning the potential cost to the community or prejudice to citizens and permanent residents.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal can remit a decision for reconsideration if the original decision did not properly consider all relevant factors, such as the potential for a waiver of health criteria.
[2025] ARTA 21792025-10-17UpheldThe central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the character test and Ministerial…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant's Class EN Subclass 186 Employer Nomination visa was mandatorily cancelled on 19 May 2023. The Tribunal reviewed the decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the character test and Ministerial Direction No. 110.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation, the decision-maker must consider the factors outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 110, including the protection of the Australian community and the applicant's ties to Australia.
[2025] ARTA 16922025-08-20UpheldThe central issue was whether there were 'other reasons' under s 501CA(4)(b) to revoke the visa cancellation, considering the applicant's character and the impact of…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought review of a delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class EN Subclass 186 visa, which was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act after his conviction for money laundering.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there were 'other reasons' under s 501CA(4)(b) to revoke the visa cancellation, considering the applicant's character and the impact of deportation.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including the risk of re-offending, rehabilitation prospects, and the impact on family, in light of community expectations.
[2025] ARTA 1182025-02-21UpheldThe central issue was whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr. Shen's visa, considering the character test and…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr. Shen, the applicant, had his Employer Nomination Scheme (subclass 186) visa cancelled due to a conviction. The Tribunal reviewed the decision to not revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr. Shen's visa, considering the character test and Direction 110.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa cancellation, the Tribunal must weigh the protection of the Australian community against the applicant's ties to Australia and the best interests of any minor children.
[2024] AATA 40412024-10-09UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicants satisfied cl 186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires an approved nomination.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Daniel Hamlet Shaw and Mrs Jodie Shaw applied onshore for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream for a café or restaurant manager position.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants satisfied cl 186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires an approved nomination.
What the tribunal established
An Employer Nomination (Permanent) subclass 186 visa cannot be granted unless the associated nomination is approved under cl 186.223 of the Migration Regulations.
[2024] AATA 40442024-10-04UpheldThe delegate refused the visas because the applicants did not satisfy clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, a requirement under s65 of the Migration…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The family applied onshore for Employer Nomination (Permanent) subclass 186 visas in the Temporary Residence Transition stream for a Café or Restaurant Manager position, but the employer's nomination was withdrawn. The applicants were holding bridging visas at the time of the decision.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visas because the applicants did not satisfy clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, a requirement under s65 of the Migration Act. The central issue was whether the withdrawn nomination could be overcome.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must have an approved employer nomination to satisfy clause 186.223 for subclass 186 visas; a withdrawn nomination cannot be waived by Ministerial Intervention.
[2024] AATA 36962024-10-02RemittedThe delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act because the nomination was not approved, raising the issue of compliance with cl 186.223(2) of Schedule 2…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicants, a married couple, applied onshore for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream for a Cook position.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act because the nomination was not approved, raising the issue of compliance with cl 186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
What the tribunal established
If a nomination is approved after a Subclass 186 application and all other cl 186.223 criteria are met, the visa application can be remitted for reconsideration rather than refused.
[2024] AATA 36972024-10-02RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet clause 186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires the applicant to be the…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Mr Maninderpal Singh, a painting trades worker, applied onshore in Melbourne for a subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa under the Direct Entry stream after his employer's nomination was initially refused.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet clause 186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires the applicant to be the subject of an approved nomination.
What the tribunal established
Applicants can meet clause 186.233 if a previously refused nomination is later approved and remains valid at the time of the visa application.
[2024] AATA 34632024-09-19UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 186.223(4) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether the nominated…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants applied for an Employer Nomination Scheme (Subclass 186) visa under the Temporary Residence Transition stream, with the primary applicant nominated as a Cook. The delegate refused the visa because the position was no longer available.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 186.223(4) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether the nominated position was still available to the applicant.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Subclass 186 visa under the Temporary Residence Transition stream, the applicant must demonstrate that the nominated position is still available to them.
[2024] AATA 34802024-09-19UpheldThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet clause 186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, as the nomination lodged by the employer had not been…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) in the Direct Entry stream, for the position of Financial Advisor.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet clause 186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, as the nomination lodged by the employer had not been approved.
What the tribunal established
To be granted an Employer Nomination Scheme visa, the nomination must be approved by the Minister.
[2024] AATA 34642024-09-17UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements of clause 186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires an approved…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants sought an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa (Subclass 186) under the Temporary Residence Transition stream, with the first applicant in the role of Sales and Marketing Manager. The delegate refused the visa because the nomination was not approved.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements of clause 186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires an approved nomination.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Subclass 186 visa under the Temporary Residence Transition stream must have an approved nomination from the Minister.
[2024] AATA 30502024-08-28Set asideThe refusal was based on Section 501(1) of the Migration Act, citing serious offending and crimes of a sexual nature against a minor.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
Jorge Ivan Peralta Montes, a Colombian national, was a temporary resident of Australia and had applied for a Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa, which was refused.
The question before the tribunal
The refusal was based on Section 501(1) of the Migration Act, citing serious offending and crimes of a sexual nature against a minor.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose circumstances change after a Section 501 refusal may have the refusal revoked if the grounds for cancellation no longer apply.
[2024] AATA 33502024-08-28UpheldThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet clause 186.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically regarding English language proficiency.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants, a couple, applied for an Employer Nomination Scheme (Subclass 186) visa under the Temporary Residence Transition stream, with the primary applicant working as a chef.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet clause 186.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically regarding English language proficiency.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream must meet the English language proficiency requirements as specified in the regulations.
[2024] AATA 31992024-08-27UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the English language competency requirements set out in clause 186.222(a) and (b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The family applied onshore for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) Class EN Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream, with the primary applicant working as a software engineer.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the English language competency requirements set out in clause 186.222(a) and (b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy the English language competency criteria in clause 186.222 of Schedule 2 at the time of a Subclass 186 visa application; non‑compliance cannot be overlooked.
[2024] AATA 31302024-08-16Set asideThe delegate refused the nomination because it was not satisfied that the terms and conditions of employment did not include an express exclusion of the possibility of…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
L & K Superior Co Pty Ltd, an Australian employer, applied onshore for approval of a nomination of a skilled worker under the Temporary Residence Transition stream of the employer nomination scheme.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the nomination because it was not satisfied that the terms and conditions of employment did not include an express exclusion of the possibility of extending the period of employment, breaching reg 5.19(5)(m).
What the tribunal established
If a nominated position’s terms do not expressly exclude the possibility of extending employment, the nomination satisfies reg 5.19(5)(m) and must be approved.
[2024] AATA 35582024-08-12RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet cl 186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, as the nomination was not approved.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicants sought an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, specifically a Subclass 186 visa, under the Temporary Residence Transition stream as a cook. The delegate initially refused the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet cl 186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, as the nomination was not approved.
What the tribunal established
When considering an application for a Subclass 186 visa, the Tribunal may remit the application if the applicant meets the requirements of cl.186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, even if there was initial adverse information.
[2024] AATA 34782024-08-09RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met cl 186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically regarding the approved nomination for the position.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicants sought Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas under the Direct Entry stream, with the first applicant as a Chef de Partie. The delegate initially refused the visas because the associated nomination was refused.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met cl 186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically regarding the approved nomination for the position.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Subclass 186 visa in the Direct Entry stream must have an approved nomination for the position to meet the requirements of cl 186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
[2024] AATA 28002024-07-23UpheldThe delegate refused the visas because the primary applicant did not satisfy clause 186.234 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires a skills…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The family applied onshore for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Subclass 186) visas in the Direct Entry stream for a position as an Air‑conditioning and Mechanical Services Plumber, with the primary applicant employed by Nelson Airconditioning since February 2021.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visas because the primary applicant did not satisfy clause 186.234 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires a skills assessment within a specified three‑year period.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who cannot meet the mandatory three‑year skills‑assessment timeframe under clause 186.234 are ineligible for a Subclass 186 Direct Entry visa, even where COVID‑19 disruption is demonstrated.
[2024] AATA 28372024-07-05UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the family unit requirement under clause 186.311 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations and the English…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Atiporn Chanpen was a secondary applicant for an Employer Nomination Scheme (subclass 186) visa as the de facto partner of Alisa Sampantarat, and they were separated onshore at the time of the decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the family unit requirement under clause 186.311 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations and the English language requirement under s 65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must be a member of the family unit of the primary visa holder at both the time of application and decision to satisfy clause 186.311 of the Migration Regulations.
[2024] AATA 23352024-06-28RemittedThe delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act and the health public interest criterion PIC 4007(2)(b) in Schedule 2, clause 186.224 of the Migration…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicants, Mr and Ms Katyal, applied onshore for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream as a cook, having been nominated by their employer.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act and the health public interest criterion PIC 4007(2)(b) in Schedule 2, clause 186.224 of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
A minister may waive the health public interest criterion PIC 4007(2)(b) where the applicant meets all other visa criteria and the grant is unlikely to result in undue cost or prejudice to Australian health services.
[2024] AATA 23372024-06-27UpheldThe delegate refused the visas because the applicants were not the subject of an approved nomination, failing to meet clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ms Manali Umeshkumar Bhatt and Mr Sapan Amrishkumar Shah applied onshore for Employer Nomination (Permanent) subclass 186 visas in the Direct Entry stream as accountants, with a nomination from Sabcha P/L.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visas because the applicants were not the subject of an approved nomination, failing to meet clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a subclass 186 visa must satisfy clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations by being the subject of an approved nomination that meets all statutory requirements.
[2024] AATA 23342024-06-25UpheldThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy clause 186.242 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires an approved nomination.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Buddhist monk working in Queensland, applied onshore for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa subclass 186 under the Labour Agreement stream as Minister of Religion.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy clause 186.242 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires an approved nomination.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a subclass 186 visa in the Labour Agreement stream must have an approved nomination that meets clause 186.242 of the Migration Regulations.
[2024] AATA 23492024-06-25UpheldThe central issue was whether the review application was filed within the 21‑day period required by s 347(1)(b) of the Migration Act and reg 4.10 of the Migration…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Diarmaid Vincent McGovern had applied for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) subclass 186 visa and sought a review of the delegate's refusal of that visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the review application was filed within the 21‑day period required by s 347(1)(b) of the Migration Act and reg 4.10 of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must submit a review application within 21 days of a valid statutory notification, otherwise the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter.
[2024] AATA 20942024-06-11UpheldThe Tribunal considered whether the applicant met clause 186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, a mandatory requirement for the Temporary Residence…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The family applied onshore for a Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream, with the primary applicant Rajan Sigdel working as an accountant for the nominating employer.
The question before the tribunal
The Tribunal considered whether the applicant met clause 186.223(2) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, a mandatory requirement for the Temporary Residence Transition stream.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream must satisfy all conditions of clause 186.223 of Schedule 2, including holding a qualifying subclass 457 visa and an unwithdrawn approved nomination.
[2024] AATA 20982024-06-11UpheldThe central issue was whether he satisfied clause 186.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires competent English evidence or an exempt…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Yang Wang, a Customer Service Manager, applied onshore for a Subclass 186 Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa under the Temporary Residence Transition stream.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether he satisfied clause 186.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires competent English evidence or an exempt passport.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream must provide evidence of competent English or hold an exempt passport to satisfy clause 186.222 of the Migration Regulations.
[2024] AATA 16462024-05-31UpheldThe delegate refused the visas because the application was made more than 6 months after the Minister approved the nomination, breaching cl 186.223(5) of Schedule 2 to…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Jamie Neil Richardson and Mrs Hannah Jade Richardson, onshore applicants, sought a Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream for a motor mechanic position, while Mrs Richardson worked as an NDIS provider and was pregnant.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visas because the application was made more than 6 months after the Minister approved the nomination, breaching cl 186.223(5) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who lodge a Subclass 186 Temporary Residence Transition visa more than six months after the nomination approval fail to meet cl 186.223(5) and must be refused.
[2024] AATA 16212024-05-27RemittedThe central issue was whether the employer nomination satisfied cl 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the requirement that the…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Mr Timo Lueck, an architect, applied onshore for a Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme visa under the Temporary Residence Transition stream after being nominated by Brian John Steendyk. The application was refused because the delegate found the employer nomination did not meet cl 186.223(2) of the Regulations.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the employer nomination satisfied cl 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the requirement that the nomination be approved and not withdrawn. The delegate had applied s 65 of the Migration Act to refuse the visa.
What the tribunal established
If an employer nomination meets all the criteria of cl 186.223 of the Migration Regulations, a refusal based on that provision can be set aside and the visa application remitted.
[2024] AATA 16422024-05-24UpheldThe central issue was whether the review application complied with s 347(1) of the Migration Act and reg 4.10/4.13 of the Migration Regulations, requiring payment of the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
National Care Plus Pty Ltd, an Australian employer, applied for review of a refusal to approve an Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS) nomination and lodged the review on 5 February 2024 while onshore.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the review application complied with s 347(1) of the Migration Act and reg 4.10/4.13 of the Migration Regulations, requiring payment of the prescribed fee and filing within the prescribed period.
What the tribunal established
Review applications for ENS nominations must be filed within the statutory period and be accompanied by the prescribed fee, otherwise the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter.
[2024] AATA 11992024-05-16UpheldThe central issue was his failure to meet the competent English requirement under clause 186.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations and regulation 1.15C, which…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Md Zahid Hassan applied on 28 November 2019 for a Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream while onshore, holding a Bangladeshi passport and a master’s degree.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was his failure to meet the competent English requirement under clause 186.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations and regulation 1.15C, which requires a score of at least 50 in each component of a specified English test within three years of application.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 186 Temporary Residence Transition visa must achieve the prescribed competent English scores in a specified test within three years before lodging and cannot rely on exemptions if they hold a non‑specified passport.
[2024] AATA 11102024-05-07UpheldThe primary issue was that the applicant did not meet the competent English requirement under clause 186.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Vikash Kumar and his family applied onshore for an Employer Nomination Scheme Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream as a Café/Restaurant Manager, with his wife and children as secondary applicants.
The question before the tribunal
The primary issue was that the applicant did not meet the competent English requirement under clause 186.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream must satisfy the competent English requirement in clause 186.222, and exemptions are only available for specific visa subclasses.
[2024] AATA 11122024-05-07UpheldThe delegate refused the visas because the applicants did not satisfy regulation 186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires an approved…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The onshore applicants, who had been living in Australia since 2015 and working in aged‑care, applied on 8 June 2023 for an Employer Nomination Scheme subclass 186 visa in the Direct Entry stream as accountants, with a dependent child.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visas because the applicants did not satisfy regulation 186.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires an approved nomination for the nominated position.
What the tribunal established
A subclass 186 visa cannot be granted unless the applicant meets the nomination requirements set out in regulation 186.233, and hardship considerations do not create an exception.
Track visa decisions as they land
Our pipeline reads new tribunal decisions from the official record every week and folds them into the numbers on these pages. Subscribers get the important rule and outcome shifts in plain English. Free, unsubscribe anytime.
Where do you actually stand?
Tribunal outcomes show how the rules are applied, but your own position depends on your visa, your points and your evidence.