Employer Nomination Refused: Your ART Appeal Options

Why this is your appeal, not the worker's

The nomination and the worker's visa application are two separate decisions, even though they're tied together — the visa cannot be granted without an approved nomination, but the nomination itself was lodged by your business as the approved (or applying) sponsor, and it's your business's name on it. That means the right to seek merits review of a nomination refusal at the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) belongs to the sponsor, not the visa applicant. The worker cannot lodge this review themselves, even though the outcome determines whether they get to stay on the pathway you sponsored them for. The ART replaced the old Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on 14 October 2024 — if anyone hands you older material referring to an AAT nomination appeal, the process it describes has moved. Because the worker has no standing here, it's worth agreeing early — ideally before you ever lodge a nomination — who is paying for a review if one is ever needed, since many employers let the worker's own migration agent run the review in the business's name while the business remains the legal applicant.

The deadline: what the letter says, not a rule of thumb

Your refusal letter states the exact number of days you have to lodge an ART application, and that number is what governs — check it against the statute below rather than against a rule of thumb. The statutory figure is 28 days. Section 347(3) of the Migration Act 1958 sets two deadlines and only two: 14 days if the applicant was in immigration detention on the day they were notified, and 28 days in every other case — which is every business sponsor. A lot of practitioner commentary still says 21 days for nomination refusals; that was the position under the AAT, which ceased on 14 October 2024, and it is no longer right. Count calendar days, not business days, and count from the day you were notified under the deeming rules in sections 494B and 494C — not from the day someone in your business happened to open the email. For reviewable migration decisions generally, the ART has no discretion to extend this kind of deadline once it has passed; there is no 'good reason' exception. If the deadline lapses without an application lodged, your review right on that nomination is gone — your remaining options become a fresh nomination (below) or accepting the refusal.

What it costs to ask for a review

The ART charges an application fee — for a reviewable migration decision (the category a nomination refusal falls into) that fee is $3,727 as at 1 July 2026, up from the prior year under the Tribunal's annual indexation. A reduced $100 fee applies in defined concessional circumstances. Migration practitioners commonly report that roughly half the fee is refunded if the review succeeds and the original decision is set aside — but a fee already paid is generally not refunded if the review is unsuccessful or withdrawn, so this is a real cost to weigh against the strength of your case before you lodge, not a formality. Add the Tribunal fee to whatever your migration agent charges to prepare and run the review — the two are separate costs.

Why nominations actually get refused

The refusal letter will cite specific grounds, and the fix depends entirely on which one applies to you. The most common: the genuine position test — the Department wasn't satisfied the role is a real, ongoing, actually-needed position, a finding that hits small businesses hardest when the role's creation coincides closely with a particular worker's circumstances. Salary below the statutory floor — from 1 July 2026 the Core Skills Income Threshold is $79,423 and the Specialist Skills Income Threshold is $146,576, and the position must also meet the genuine market rate on top of whichever floor applies. Labour market testing deficiencies — advertising that didn't run for the required period, wasn't on the right platforms, or didn't genuinely target Australian candidates. And sponsorship-status problems — the business isn't approved, has lapsed, or the Department wasn't satisfied it's lawfully and actively operating. Reading exactly which ground was cited, in your own letter, is the first thing to do before deciding anything else.

Review, or start again with a fresh nomination?

You generally have two live paths, and they're not the same decision. Lodging an ART review keeps the original nomination alive and, for an onshore worker, typically lets their bridging visa continue while the Tribunal considers it — but current ART processing for migration matters commonly runs from several months to well over a year, and the Tribunal is reviewing whether the original decision was correct on the evidence that should have been available at the time, not simply giving you a second attempt with different facts. A fresh nomination, by contrast, restarts the process — a new SAF levy payment, new application charges, and a new decision timeframe — but it lets you fix a genuine gap in the original application (say, additional payroll records, or advertising you can now show ran correctly) without waiting on a review outcome first. Which one makes sense depends on whether the refusal reason is something you can demonstrably fix, and on how much runway the worker's current visa status gives you either way. This is exactly the kind of judgment call worth putting to a migration agent who works in employer sponsorship before you spend the ART fee.

What actually strengthens a nomination review

Reviews that go somewhere tend to bring evidence the Department's original decision-maker didn't have — not just a restatement of the same material. For a genuine-position finding: an organisational chart showing where the role sits, financial records or revenue evidence showing the business can support and needs the position, and independent evidence (contracts, client demand, other staff workload) that the role isn't invented around one candidate. For a salary or market-rate finding: an independent salary benchmark for the occupation and location, or recruitment-agency data on comparable roles. For labour market testing: the actual advertising records — dates, platforms, and how long each ad ran — rather than a description of what was advertised. Having this kind of documentation organised and dated before you ever nominate is the difference between assembling it under a 28-day deadline and having it ready to hand to your agent on day one — which is the entire argument for treating your nomination evidence as something you build and keep, not something you scramble for after a refusal letter arrives.

What happens to the worker's visa application while this plays out

The 482 or 186 visa application is a separate decision from the nomination, but it cannot be approved without an approved nomination sitting behind it — so the nomination outcome controls the visa outcome even though the two are lodged and decided separately. If the worker is onshore and holds a substantive visa or a bridging visa at the time of the nomination refusal, lodging an ART application generally keeps their bridging visa arrangements running while the review is on foot, so they are not left without status purely because the nomination was refused. What the review does not do is fast-track anything — with current ART migration matters commonly taking several months to well over a year, a worker whose bridging visa carries work restrictions, or who needs to travel, faces a long stretch of uncertainty regardless of which path the business takes. This is worth spelling out to the worker directly and early: the refusal is a decision about your business's sponsorship, not a finding about them, but the practical consequences land on their visa status first.

Avoiding a second refusal

Whichever path you take — review or fresh nomination — the same evidence gaps tend to recur if they're not addressed directly. Read the refusal letter's stated reasons line by line before doing anything else; a genuine-position finding and a salary finding call for completely different evidence, and preparing the wrong kind wastes the time you don't have. If genuine position was the issue, get the role's business case in writing before you nominate again — revenue trajectory, reporting lines, and why the position exists independently of any one candidate. If labour market testing was the issue, keep dated screenshots and platform receipts for every advertisement from the day it goes live, not reconstructed afterwards from memory. Home Affairs' own sponsorship obligations guidance and the current Core Skills Occupation List are worth checking before a second attempt — an occupation can move between the 482 core skills list and other lists, and a stale printout is how a second nomination fails on a technicality nobody caught. A MARA-registered migration agent who works specifically in employer sponsorship (see /agents/employer-sponsored-visa) can review the letter and your evidence before you spend the ART fee or the SAF levy a second time.

Can the visa applicant lodge the ART review themselves if we don't?

No. The right to seek review of a nomination refusal sits with the sponsoring business, not the visa applicant, regardless of how motivated the worker is to fix it. If your business chooses not to pursue review, the worker's own options are separate — a different sponsor, a different visa pathway, or accepting the outcome — and are not something this review process can give them.

How many days do we actually have?

Twenty-eight calendar days from the day you're notified of the decision, under section 347(3) of the Migration Act — or 14 days if the visa applicant was in immigration detention on that day. Your refusal letter will also state a date; check it against the statute, but 28 days is the figure that governs for a business sponsor in every other case. The Tribunal cannot extend this deadline once it passes — there is no good-reason exception.

What does an ART review cost, and do we get any of it back?

The application fee for a reviewable migration decision is $3,727 as at 1 July 2026 (a reduced $100 fee applies in limited concessional circumstances). Practitioners commonly report roughly half is refunded if the review succeeds, but a fee already paid is generally not refunded if the review is unsuccessful or withdrawn — confirm current refund terms before you lodge.

Should we appeal the refusal or just submit a corrected nomination?

It depends on what specifically was wrong and whether you can genuinely fix it. A fresh nomination restarts costs (including a new SAF levy) but lets you address a real gap directly; an ART review keeps the original nomination alive and, for an onshore worker, can preserve their bridging visa status, but takes months to over a year and reviews the evidence as it stood at the time. Neither path is automatically right — it's worth a specific assessment of your refusal grounds before choosing.

Does a nomination refusal mean the worker has to leave?

Not immediately in most cases — an onshore worker typically continues on a bridging visa while your business decides on review, a fresh nomination, or another pathway, though their specific status depends on what visa they currently hold. The refusal affects the nomination and, in turn, the visa application tied to it — it isn't itself a decision about the worker's presence in Australia.

Can we lodge a fresh nomination while an ART review of the first one is still pending?

This is a case-specific question worth putting to a migration agent before you act — running both at once has cost and consistency implications (a second nomination that concedes a gap in the first can undercut the review's argument that the original decision was wrong). Most businesses choose one path and pursue it, rather than both simultaneously.

Is the review process different for a 482 nomination versus a 186 nomination refusal?

The right to seek ART review, the 28-day deadline, and the $3,727 fee are the same mechanism across the Skills in Demand (482) and Employer Nomination Scheme (186) programs — both are nomination decisions reviewable under the same Part 5 provisions. What differs is the substantive nomination criteria each program applies (temporary sponsorship versus permanent, and TRT versus Direct Entry streams for a 186), so the evidence a review needs to address depends on which visa's nomination was refused.