When a skills in demand visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 218 such decisions (2023 to 2026), covering the employer-sponsored temporary skilled work visa (formerly the TSS 482). 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 218 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 33% of the time, set it aside 19% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 48% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Remitted | 105 | 48.2% |
| Upheld | 63 | 28.9% |
| Set aside | 41 | 18.8% |
| Affirmed | 9 | 4.1% |
Counts from 218 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 | 44 | 0% |
| 2025 | 18 | 0% |
| 2024 | 155 | 26% |
| 2023 | 1 | 100% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 27 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 10852026-06-03RemittedThe delegate refused the visa application due to the applicant not meeting the requirements of cl 482.231 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically not working in…
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 applicant, Mr Bremen Navarro Sanchez, applied for a Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa under the Medium-term stream to work as a Fibrous Plasterer.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa application due to the applicant not meeting the requirements of cl 482.231 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically not working in the nominated occupation or a related field for at least 2 years.
What the tribunal established
The applicant must meet the requirements of cl 482.231 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations to be eligible for a Subclass 482 visa.
[2026] ARTA 10862026-06-03RemittedThe delegate refused to approve the nomination, citing concerns that the position was not genuine and that the applicant had not provided sufficient information about…
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 applicant, Future Fields Pty Ltd, operates a dairy farm and food processing facility in Western Australia and sought to nominate a migrant worker, Mr Nater, as a Chemical Engineer under the Subclass 482 visa program.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused to approve the nomination, citing concerns that the position was not genuine and that the applicant had not provided sufficient information about the business context.
What the tribunal established
The position associated with the nominated occupation must be genuine and full-time.
[2026] ARTA 10982026-05-28RemittedThe delegate was not satisfied that the position associated with the nominated occupation was genuine.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
To Do Automotive Pty Ltd's nomination for a Motor Mechanic under the Subclass 482 visa was refused due to concerns about the genuineness of the position.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied that the position associated with the nominated occupation was genuine.
What the tribunal established
The position associated with the nominated occupation must be genuine and full-time.
[2026] ARTA 10922026-05-25AffirmedThe issue in dispute was whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination, specifically whether the position associated with the nominated…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Ausie Almond Farms Pty Ltd, nominated Mr Singh for a Subclass 482 visa in the occupation of Nut Grower, but the delegate refused the nomination due to concerns about the genuineness of the position.
The question before the tribunal
The issue in dispute was whether the applicant met the criteria for approval of the nomination, specifically whether the position associated with the nominated occupation was genuine.
What the tribunal established
The labour market testing condition requires a person nominating an occupation to test the Australian labour market to demonstrate whether a suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizen or permanent resident is readily available to fill the position.
[2026] ARTA 9692026-05-18RemittedThe delegate refused the nomination on the basis that the nominated occupation was not genuine and the position was not full‑time.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Mairaa Pty Ltd nominated Indian hairdresser Suraj Bhujel for a Subclass 482 visa in the Core Skills stream to work at its new Strathfield salon.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the nomination on the basis that the nominated occupation was not genuine and the position was not full‑time.
What the tribunal established
Regulation 2.72(10) requires the nominated position to be genuine and full‑time, and the Tribunal must assess the duties against the ANZSCO description to determine genuineness.
[2026] ARTA 8682026-05-05RemittedThe Minister was not satisfied that the position associated with the nominated occupation was genuine, as the tasks to be performed by the nominee did not align…
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 applicant, ABF Express Pty Ltd, had their nomination for a Transport Company Manager under the Subclass 482 visa refused by the Minister, which was then reviewed by the Tribunal.
The question before the tribunal
The Minister was not satisfied that the position associated with the nominated occupation was genuine, as the tasks to be performed by the nominee did not align substantially with the tasks of the nominated occupation.
What the tribunal established
The position associated with the nominated occupation must be genuine and full-time, unless it is reasonable to disregard this requirement.
[2026] ARTA 9712026-05-05RemittedWhether the primary applicant satisfied the nomination approval requirement under cl 482.212(1) and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the third applicant’s…
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 primary applicant and his partner applied for subclass 482 visas, the employer's nomination was later approved, and the Tribunal set aside the refusals and remitted the applications for reconsideration.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the primary applicant satisfied the nomination approval requirement under cl 482.212(1) and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the third applicant’s decision.
What the tribunal established
Clause 482.212(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations requires an approved nomination made by an approved sponsor that has not ceased for a subclass 482 visa.
[2026] ARTA 8132026-04-14RemittedThe delegate was not satisfied that the position associated with the nominated occupation of Conference and Events Organiser was genuine.
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 applicant, XTRA ORDINARY EVENTS PTY LTD, sought review of a decision to refuse approval of a nomination for a Subclass 482 visa for an Events Manager position.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied that the position associated with the nominated occupation of Conference and Events Organiser was genuine.
What the tribunal established
The position associated with the nominated occupation must be genuine and full-time.
[2026] ARTA 9012026-04-14RemittedWhether the nominated accountant position satisfies the genuine and full‑time requirements of reg 2.72(10) of the Migration Regulations.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Art Cleaning and Maintenance Services Pty Ltd nominated an Indian accountant for a Subclass 482 visa and the delegate refused on the basis that the position was not genuine.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the nominated accountant position satisfies the genuine and full‑time requirements of reg 2.72(10) of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
The position must be genuine and full‑time under reg 2.72(10) of the Migration Regulations, assessed by comparing the actual duties with the ANZSCO occupation description.
[2026] ARTA 9092026-04-14RemittedThe delegate determined that the Company did not meet the criterion in reg 2.72(15) of the Regulations regarding the annual market salary rate for the nominated…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Jasmin 1 Leichhardt Pty Ltd nominated a Thai national, Ms Kanokkan Siewprayoon, for a Chef position in the Medium-term stream, but the delegate refused the nomination due to concerns about the annual market salary rate.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate determined that the Company did not meet the criterion in reg 2.72(15) of the Regulations regarding the annual market salary rate for the nominated occupation of Chef.
What the tribunal established
The annual market salary rate for a nominated occupation must be determined in accordance with the method specified in the relevant legislative instrument IMMI 18/033.
[2026] ARTA 9202026-04-10AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4001 by providing the required police clearance statement.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant could not provide a Malaysian police clearance certificate because he lacked a valid Malaysian passport and was unable to travel abroad on his Bridging Visa C.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4001 by providing the required police clearance statement.
What the tribunal established
A requirement under reg 2.03AA(2)(a) may be waived only if it is not reasonable for the applicant to provide the statement; a mere preference not to travel without guaranteed re‑entry is not sufficient to waive the requirement.
[2026] ARTA 8092026-04-08AffirmedThe applicant's nomination was refused due to the delegate not being satisfied that the position associated with the nominated occupation was genuine.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Kolob Consulting Pty Ltd, had its approval as a Standard Business Sponsor cancelled due to providing false and misleading information and is now seeking approval for a nomination under the Subclass 482 visa.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's nomination was refused due to the delegate not being satisfied that the position associated with the nominated occupation was genuine.
What the tribunal established
The Minister must be satisfied that the position associated with the occupation is genuine and a full-time position.
[2026] ARTA 9082026-04-08AffirmedThe nomination was refused because the applicant was not an approved Standard Business Sponsor and had adverse information known to Immigration.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
KOLOB Consulting nominated a Cook position for a Subclass 482 short‑term stream visa.
The question before the tribunal
The nomination was refused because the applicant was not an approved Standard Business Sponsor and had adverse information known to Immigration.
What the tribunal established
Regulation 2.72 requires a nominator to be a current approved Standard Business Sponsor and to have no adverse information (or a reasonable basis to disregard it) for a nomination to be approved.
[2026] ARTA 6732026-03-31AffirmedWhether the nominated position satisfied the genuine‑position requirement of reg 2.72(10)(a).
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A staffing agency nominated the managing director’s sister for a Student Counsellor position in its disability and aged‑care labour business.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the nominated position satisfied the genuine‑position requirement of reg 2.72(10)(a).
What the tribunal established
The position must be genuine and its tasks must substantially align with the ANZSCO description of the nominated occupation; a mismatch in duties or business context means the position is not genuine.
[2026] ARTA 11022026-03-31AffirmedThe applicant did not meet the required English language test scores for an IELTS test.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Mr Francesco De Giglio, applied for a Temporary Skill Shortage visa under the Medium-term stream but did not meet the English language requirement.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant did not meet the required English language test scores for an IELTS test.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 482 visa must satisfy the English language requirement in cl 482.232 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
[2026] ARTA 9362026-03-26RemittedWhether the applicant satisfied the English language requirement under cl 482.232 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
South Korean national Mr Lee applied for a Subclass 482 visa and was refused for not providing English language evidence.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied the English language requirement under cl 482.232 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
What the tribunal established
A tribunal may set aside a delegate’s refusal and remit the application when new evidence satisfies the statutory language requirement and a hearing is not necessary under s 106(3) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.
[2026] ARTA 6682026-03-25RemittedThe delegate was not satisfied the position associated with the nominated occupation was genuine as the roles and responsibilities did not align with the nominated…
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 applicant, Old Fashioned Melbourne Pty Ltd, had their nomination for a Bar Manager under the Subclass 482 visa refused by the Minister due to concerns the position was not genuine.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied the position associated with the nominated occupation was genuine as the roles and responsibilities did not align with the nominated category of 141999 – Accommodation and Hospitality Manager.
What the tribunal established
The position must be genuine and full-time, unless it is reasonable to disregard this requirement, as per reg 2.72(10) of the Regulations.
[2026] ARTA 6742026-03-25RemittedThe delegate refused the nomination on the basis that the position did not satisfy reg 2.72(10)(a) because it was not genuine.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Steak House Blacktown Pty Ltd, a restaurant business, nominated a chef position for a Subclass 482 medium‑term stream nomination.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the nomination on the basis that the position did not satisfy reg 2.72(10)(a) because it was not genuine.
What the tribunal established
The Minister must be satisfied that the position associated with the nominated occupation is genuine under reg 2.72(10)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).
[2026] ARTA 5742026-03-19RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied reg 2.72(10)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which concerns the genuineness of the nominated 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 applicant sought review of a decision refusing to approve the nomination of a Chef for a Subclass 482 visa in the Medium-term stream. The delegate was not satisfied the position was genuine.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied reg 2.72(10)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which concerns the genuineness of the nominated position.
What the tribunal established
For a nomination to be approved, the position associated with the nominated occupation must be genuine.
[2026] ARTA 5902026-03-18AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfied reg 2.72(10) requiring a genuine, full‑time nominated position.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Superior Farm Services applied to nominate an accountant for a Subclass 482 medium‑term stream visa but was refused on the basis that the position was not genuine.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied reg 2.72(10) requiring a genuine, full‑time nominated position.
What the tribunal established
Under s 140GB of the Migration Act and reg 2.72(10), a nomination must be for a genuine, full‑time position; the Tribunal may decide without a hearing under s 106(3) when the only parties are the applicant and a non‑participating party and the applicant requests a decision on the papers.
[2026] ARTA 6432026-03-18AffirmedThe applicant did not have an approved nomination in effect, which is a requirement 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 applicant, Mr Xu Yang, applied for a Temporary Skill Shortage visa under the medium-term stream to work as a stonemason, but was refused due to the lack of an approved nomination.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant did not have an approved nomination in effect, which is a requirement for the grant of the visa.
What the tribunal established
The nomination identified in the visa application must be approved under s 140GB of the Migration Act 1958.
[2026] ARTA 8412026-03-18RemittedThe nomination was refused on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy cl 2.72(10)(a) of the Regulations because the delegate was not satisfied that 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 applicant, Pinoy Stop Pty Limited, applied for approval to nominate a Café or Restaurant Manager (ANZSCO 141111) on 22 July 2024 for a Subclass 482 visa in the Short-term stream.
The question before the tribunal
The nomination was refused on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy cl 2.72(10)(a) of the Regulations because the delegate was not satisfied that the position associated with the nominated occupation was genuine.
What the tribunal established
The position associated with the nominated occupation must be genuine.
[2026] ARTA 5762026-03-17RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of reg 2.72(15) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding the information provided to…
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 applicant, Jorlan Pty Ltd, sought approval of a nomination for a Hairdresser under the Core Skills stream for a Subclass 482 visa. The delegate initially refused the nomination, leading to an application for review before the Tribunal.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of reg 2.72(15) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding the information provided to the Department.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal will set aside a decision and remit the matter for reconsideration if the applicant meets the requirements of reg 2.72(15) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
[2026] ARTA 5922026-03-17RemittedWhether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4020 under clause 482.217 of the Migration Regulations.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
A skilled butcher from the Philippines applied for a GK Temporary Skill Shortage visa (Subclass 482) and was refused on integrity grounds.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4020 under clause 482.217 of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
PIC 4020 requires no bogus document or false/misleading information in a material particular; the Tribunal is not satisfied such a breach occurred and therefore the criterion is met.
[2026] ARTA 5962026-03-17RemittedThe delegate was not satisfied that the requirements of reg 5.19(9)(d) could be met, specifically that there is a genuine need for the identified person to be employed…
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 Melbourne Greyhound Racing Association applied for approval of a nomination for a Chef under the Direct Entry stream, which was refused due to lack of evidence of genuine need for the position.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied that the requirements of reg 5.19(9)(d) could be met, specifically that there is a genuine need for the identified person to be employed in the position.
What the tribunal established
Reg 5.19(9)(d) requires a genuine need for the identified person to be employed in the position, under the direct control of the nominator.
[2026] ARTA 8442026-03-13RemittedWhether the company satisfies the reg 2.72 criteria, particularly the requirement that no adverse information exists or can be reasonably disregarded.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Porter House Hospitality Group applied to nominate a chef for a subclass 482 medium‑term stream but was refused because of alleged adverse information and salary‑threshold issues.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the company satisfies the reg 2.72 criteria, particularly the requirement that no adverse information exists or can be reasonably disregarded.
What the tribunal established
A nomination must meet reg 2.72(4) – there must be no adverse information about the sponsor (or associated person) unless the decision‑maker is satisfied it can be reasonably disregarded.
[2026] ARTA 8692026-03-11RemittedThe delegate found that the applicant had provided a bogus document or false or misleading information in relation to her visa application.
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 applicant's visa application was refused due to concerns about the authenticity of her claimed employment at Fashion Z Hair and Beauty Salon.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate found that the applicant had provided a bogus document or false or misleading information in relation to her visa application.
What the tribunal established
The applicant must satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4020 for the grant of a Subclass 482 visa.
[2026] ARTA 5942026-03-06AffirmedThe primary applicant did not have an approved nomination and therefore did not satisfy clause 482.212(1), and the secondary applicant could not satisfy clause…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants, a primary applicant and his spouse, applied for Temporary Skill Shortage (Subclass 482) visas in the medium‑term stream as a chef and as a family member.
The question before the tribunal
The primary applicant did not have an approved nomination and therefore did not satisfy clause 482.212(1), and the secondary applicant could not satisfy clause 482.312(1).
What the tribunal established
Clause 482.212(1) of Schedule 2 requires an approved nomination made by an approved sponsor and not ceased; without such a nomination the visa criteria are not met.
[2026] ARTA 5912026-03-06RemittedThe delegate was not satisfied that the position associated with the nominated occupation of Gardner was genuine, as the company's website did not reference gardening…
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 applicant, No Time For Grime Pty Ltd, had its nomination application for a Gardner under the Subclass 482 visa refused by the delegate due to concerns the position was not genuine.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied that the position associated with the nominated occupation of Gardner was genuine, as the company's website did not reference gardening services and the majority of tasks performed by the nominee did not align with the business.
What the tribunal established
The position associated with the nominated occupation must be genuine and full-time, unless it is reasonable to disregard the full-time requirement.
[2026] ARTA 3772026-02-24RemittedThe central issue was whether the position of cabinetmaker was a genuine position, as required by reg 2.72(10)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Yong Furnishing Pty Ltd applied to nominate a cabinetmaker for a Subclass 482 visa (Medium-term stream). The delegate refused the nomination, finding the position was not genuine under reg 2.72(10)(a).
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the position of cabinetmaker was a genuine position, as required by reg 2.72(10)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
A family relationship between the director and the nominee does not automatically preclude a finding that the nominated position is genuine.
[2026] ARTA 3662026-02-19RemittedThe central issue was whether the position of Diesel Motor Mechanic met the requirement of reg 2.72(10)(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires 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
Plum Oak Pty Ltd applied for approval of a nomination for a Diesel Motor Mechanic for a Subclass 482 visa in the Medium-term stream. The delegate refused the nomination because the position was not considered full-time.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the position of Diesel Motor Mechanic met the requirement of reg 2.72(10)(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the position to be a full-time position.
What the tribunal established
For a nomination under the Medium-term stream of a Subclass 482 visa, the position must be a genuine full-time position.
[2026] ARTA 3812026-02-18RemittedThe delegate refused to approve the nomination because they were not satisfied the position was genuine and the applicant did not satisfy reg 2.72(10)(a) of 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
The Curtain and Blind Company Pty Ltd applied for review of a decision refusing to approve their nomination for a Marketing Specialist position for a Subclass 482 visa in the Short-term stream.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused to approve the nomination because they were not satisfied the position was genuine and the applicant did not satisfy reg 2.72(10)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
For a nomination to be approved, the position must be genuine and meet the criteria specified in the Migration Regulations.
[2026] ARTA 3642026-02-16UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 482.212(1) of 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 applicants sought a Subclass 482 (Temporary Skill Shortage) visa under the Medium-term stream, with the primary applicant nominated as a Telecommunications Field Engineer. The delegate refused the visa because the nomination had not been approved.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 482.212(1) of the Migration Regulations, which requires an approved nomination.
What the tribunal established
A Subclass 482 visa application will be refused if the nomination associated with the application has not been approved.
[2026] ARTA 3792026-02-12RemittedThe delegate refused to approve the nomination because they were not satisfied the position associated with the occupation was genuine, as required by reg 2.72(10) of…
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 applicant sought review of a decision refusing to approve their nomination for a Subclass 482 visa. The applicant nominated an occupation for the Short-term stream.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused to approve the nomination because they were not satisfied the position associated with the occupation was genuine, as required by reg 2.72(10) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
When assessing the genuineness of a nominated position for a Subclass 482 visa, the decision-maker must consider the specific circumstances of the business and the role.
[2026] ARTA 2462026-02-11UpheldThe central issue was whether the Tribunal could reinstate the application after the applicant failed to comply with a direction to provide information, and the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Bhatia Brothers Pty Ltd, sought review of a decision to refuse to approve a nomination for a subclass 482 visa. The Tribunal had directed the applicant to provide information, which they failed to do.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal could reinstate the application after the applicant failed to comply with a direction to provide information, and the application for reinstatement was made more than 28 days after the specified period ended, as per s 368C of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
When an applicant fails to comply with a direction to provide information and does not apply for reinstatement within 28 days, the Administrative Review Tribunal must confirm the decision to dismiss the application.
[2026] ARTA 3712026-02-03UpheldThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 482.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, as the nomination by her employer…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants sought a Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa (Subclass 482) in the Short-term stream, with the primary applicant nominated as a Program or Project Administrator.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 482.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, as the nomination by her employer had been refused.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Subclass 482 visa must have an approved nomination by an employer to satisfy the requirements of cl 482.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
[2026] ARTA 1992026-02-02UpheldThe central issue was whether the delegate was satisfied that the nominated position associated with the occupation was genuine, as required by s 140GB 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 applicant, a sole trader, applied for approval of a nomination for a Chef position for a Subclass 482 visa in the Medium-term stream. The business was sold after the review application was made, and the nominee stopped working for the applicant.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the delegate was satisfied that the nominated position associated with the occupation was genuine, as required by s 140GB of the Migration Act 1958 and reg 2.72 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
For a nomination to be approved, the position must be genuine, and the applicant must satisfy the criteria outlined in the Migration Act and Regulations.
[2026] ARTA 2742026-02-02RemittedThe delegate refused the nomination because they were not satisfied the position was genuine, as required by reg 2.72(10)(a) of the Migration Regulations.
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 applicant, Ambergold Holdings Pty Ltd, sought review of a decision refusing to approve their nomination for a Café or Restaurant Manager under s 140GB of the Migration Act for a Subclass 482 visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the nomination because they were not satisfied the position was genuine, as required by reg 2.72(10)(a) of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
For a nomination to be approved, the decision-maker must be satisfied that the position associated with the nominated occupation is genuine.
[2026] ARTA 1142026-01-23RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 482.212(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether the nomination…
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 applicant sought a Subclass 482 (Temporary Skill Shortage) visa in the short-term stream as a Sales and Marketing Manager. The delegate refused the visa because the nomination application made by the employer sponsor had not been approved.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 482.212(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether the nomination application for the applicant's position had been approved.
What the tribunal established
For a Subclass 482 visa, the nomination identified in the visa application must be approved, made by an approved work sponsor, and not ceased.
[2026] ARTA 2512026-01-20RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant had correctly determined the annual market salary rate for the nominated occupation, as required by reg 2.72(15) of 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
The applicant sought review of a decision refusing to approve their nomination for a Subclass 482 visa in the Short-term stream. The delegate decided the applicant did not satisfy reg 2.72(15) of the Migration Regulations.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant had correctly determined the annual market salary rate for the nominated occupation, as required by reg 2.72(15) of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
When determining the annual market salary rate for a nominated occupation, the decision-maker must consider relevant market salary evidence and ensure the rate is consistent with Australian labour market conditions.
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.