In the unfortunate circumstances of a Skills in Demand (Subclass 482) (SID) nomination refusal, it is important to understand your options and act quickly.
A nomination refusal does not necessarily mean the end of your 482 pathway. Depending on the circumstances, you may be able to:
- seek merits review of the refusal at the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART);
- withdraw the pending visa application and start again with a new nomination and visa application; or
- pursue both pathways at the same time.
Alternatively, if you no longer wish to proceed with your 482 pathway, you may withdraw the visa application and take no further action.
There is no single “right” option. The best strategy will depend on the reasons for the refusal, the strength of the evidence available, how quickly you need an outcome, your visa status, and the costs you are prepared to incur.
This article explains the key differences between each option.
How does a nomination refusal affect the visa application?
A 482 visa cannot be granted unless there is an approved nomination that identifies the visa applicant.
If the nomination associated with your application has been refused, the Department will generally allow you to respond to the proposed refusal of the visa application by issuing a section 57 natural justice letter.
In practical terms, unless the nomination refusal is overturned or the visa application is withdrawn, the associated visa application will be refused. This makes timing critical.
Depending on your circumstances, there are four main options.
Option 1: Seek merits review at the Administrative Review Tribunal
The usual pathway for challenging a reviewable refusal is to apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) in respect of both the nomination and, once refused, the visa application.
Key things to note are:
Strict time limit
The time limit for seeking review is strict and depends on the type of decision and the circumstances of the applicant. You should carefully check the Department’s decision letter.
For many migration decisions, the review period is 28 days. The ART has no general power to extend the statutory time limit.
Processing times are long
ART migration reviews can take considerably longer than a fresh visa application.
For reviews of nomination and sponsorship decisions, the ART currently reports that 50% of matters finalised between February and July 2026 were completed within approximately 1 year and 7 months, while 95% were completed within approximately 2 years and 5 months.
Review fees apply
The current ART fee for most reviewable migration decisions is $3,727, with a 50% reduction potentially available where payment would cause financial hardship.
Where a migration review is successful, the ART generally refunds 50% of the application fee where the decision is set aside or varied, or the matter is remitted to the Department.
There is also a separate refund provision that can be particularly relevant where you are pursuing both an ART review and a fresh visa application. If the review concerns a visa refusal and you subsequently obtain a visa of the same class as the visa under review, you may withdraw the visa review and receive a refund of the review application fee. However, this refund provision does not apply to an associated nomination or sponsorship review.
Professional fees
There will generally be additional professional costs associated with preparing the review, gathering evidence, preparing submissions and, where applicable, attending a Tribunal hearing as a legal representative.
Bridging visa
Provided that a review of the visa and nomination refusals are validly lodged, you may be entitled to a Bridging Visa while the review is pending, allowing you to lawfully remain (and in many cases continue working) in Australia.
ART review may be appropriate where there are strong grounds to argue that the nomination refusal was incorrect, particularly where the business has compelling evidence supporting the genuine need for the position and the nominated role.
The major disadvantage is time. A Tribunal review can take years rather than months.
Option 2: Withdraw and lodge a new nomination and visa application
An alternative is to withdraw the pending visa application and start again with a new 482 nomination and visa application.
This approach can allow the sponsor and applicant to directly address the concerns raised by the Department and present a substantially stronger case.
For example, a new application may include:
- a detailed submission addressing each concern raised by the case officer;
- a clear explanation of the day-to-day duties of the position and how they align with the nominated occupation;
- evidence explaining why the position is genuinely required by the business;
- reference letters from senior employees or managers who can explain the role and its importance to the business;
- organisational charts and reporting lines;
- examples of the work performed, or expected to be performed, in the position; and
- other contemporaneous business evidence supporting the nomination.
Key things to note are:
Faster outcome
A new nomination and visa application can generally be processed considerably faster than an ART review, although processing times vary and no particular timeframe can be guaranteed.
No guarantee of success
Relodging does not automatically overcome the original refusal. If the underlying issues have not been properly addressed, a new case officer may reach the same conclusion.
New fees apply
A visa application charge refund may sometimes be available
If you withdraw a visa application because there is no approved nomination identifying you, you may be able to seek a refund of the visa application charge in certain circumstances. We’ve written previously about when a VAC refund is available.
Your bridging visa position can change
If you are currently on a Bridging Visa A (BVA), withdrawing your existing visa application and lodging a new application can result in you later moving onto a Bridging Visa C (BVC).
A BVC does not automatically provide work rights. A separate application, based on demonstrating financial hardship, would be required to obtain permission to work – see our article on bridging visa work rights for more detail on what this involves. A BVC also cannot be converted into a Bridging Visa B (BVB), meaning no travel permissions. This is an important consideration for anyone who relies on their current bridging visa to remain lawfully in Australia and work while their visa application is processed.
This option may be preferable where:
- the refusal appears to be capable of being addressed with better evidence, and the business can provide substantially stronger evidence;
- a faster outcome is important;
- the applicant has sufficient time and visa options to lodge a fresh application; and
- the applicant is comfortable accepting the risk of starting again.
Option 3: Pursue both ART review and a fresh application
In some circumstances, you may choose to pursue both pathways at the same time: lodge an application for ART review, while also preparing a fresh 482 nomination and visa application.
The main advantage of pursuing both pathways is that you are not relying entirely on one outcome. If the fresh nomination and visa application is successful, you may no longer need to continue with the Tribunal process (and seek a refund). Conversely, if the fresh application is unsuccessful, the ART review may continue to provide another avenue to challenge the original refusal.
Pursuing both can also be useful where the business needs additional time to address the concerns raised in the original nomination refusal. Lodging the ART review within the applicable time limit can preserve the review pathway while the sponsor gathers further evidence and prepares a stronger nomination.
Key things to note are:
There are additional costs
Pursuing both pathways means paying for two processes at the same time. This would include ART application fees, professional fees for the review, and the costs of preparing and lodging a new 482 nomination and visa application.
For some applicants, however, the additional cost may be justified where the priority is to maximise the prospects of securing a 482 visa and maintaining a viable pathway to remain in Australia.
You may be able to recover the ART fee if the new visa is granted
If you have lodged an ART review of a visa refusal and subsequently obtain a visa of the same class as the visa under review, you may be able to withdraw the visa review and receive a refund of the ART application fee.
This is different from the refund that may apply where the ART itself sets aside, varies or remits a decision. Importantly, the same-class visa refund provision applies to the review of the visa decision and does not provide the same refund for an associated nomination or sponsorship review.
Be careful about withdrawing the existing visa application
One of the most important considerations is what happens if the existing visa application is refused while you are in Australia, and you no longer hold a substantive visa.
If your visa application is refused, and you do not hold a substantive visa, section 48 of the Migration Act 1958 would restrict your ability to lodge another substantive visa application while you remain in Australia. This can be particularly significant for someone who intends to withdraw their current application and simply lodge a new 482 application.
Depending on the circumstances, you may need to leave Australia briefly in order to lodge a further 482 visa application offshore. We have a separate article on the s 48 bar and how it affects further onshore applications after visa refusal.
Ultimately, pursuing both pathways can be a sensible strategy where the applicant wants to preserve their existing review rights while allowing the sponsor to address the issues that led to the original refusal.
However, whether this approach is appropriate will depend on the individual circumstances, including the reasons for the refusal, the prospects of a fresh nomination being approved, the applicant’s current visa status, the urgency of obtaining a new visa outcome, and the costs involved.
Option 4: Withdraw and take no further action
Finally, some applicants may decide to withdraw their pending visa application and not pursue either a new 482 application or ART review.
This may be appropriate where:
- the sponsoring position is no longer available;
- the applicant’s circumstances have changed;
- the business no longer wishes to sponsor the applicant; or
- the applicant has decided to pursue another visa pathway.
Although this may be the simplest option, it is still important to consider the consequences of withdrawal for your current visa status, bridging visa and future visa options.
Which option is right for you?
There is no one-size-fits-all answer. Broadly:
- If you have a strong case and can wait for an outcome, Tribunal review may be worthwhile.
- If you need a faster resolution and can strengthen your evidence, a fresh application may be preferable.
- If you want to maximise your prospects and cost is not the primary constraint, doing both may be appropriate.
- If your circumstances have changed, withdrawing without further action may be the simplest path.
Every case turns on its own facts – including the reasons for the nomination refusal, the strength of the evidence available, and your personal and business circumstances.
Need advice?
If your 482 nomination has been refused, or you have received a section 57 natural justice letter, it is important to obtain advice promptly so that your options can be assessed before any applicable deadline expires.
Our experienced immigration team can assess the refusal, explain the available options and help you determine whether ART review, a fresh application, or a combination of both is the most appropriate strategy for your circumstances. If you would like assistance, please feel free to contact us by email at [email protected] or phone +61 3 9016 0484.
You can also subscribe to our Australian immigration newsletter to stay up to date with the latest immigration news.
