Skilled visa refusal in 2026: review options for 491, 494 and 482 applicants

How nomination and sponsorship failure reshapes the review sequence for refused subclass 491, 494 and 482 applications.

Published: 12 October 2026

A ceased, refused or withdrawn nomination does more than trigger a visa refusal — it changes the order in which that refusal can be challenged. The Migration Regulations 1994 build the nomination into the visa criteria themselves: regulation 482.212(1) and regulation 494.213(1) each require that the nomination be approved under section 140GB of the Migration Act, that the nominator was an approved work sponsor at the time the nomination was approved, and that the approval has not ceased — under regulation 2.75 for subclass 482 and regulation 2.75B for subclass 494. Subclass 491 approaches the same dependency from another direction, because regulation 491.217(1) turns on whether a State or Territory nomination has been withdrawn. Reviewing the visa decision alone rarely repairs any of this. What follows sets out how that ordering works for employer-sponsored subclass 494 and 482 refusals, how subclass 491 differs, and what must be settled before a review application becomes useful. The discussion is general information about how the framework is expressed in the Regulations and in the Department of Home Affairs' Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3); it is not personalised advice on individual circumstances, and current settings should be checked against the Department's latest published guidance.

Why is the nomination treated as a decision separate from the visa?

Because two decisions are made, in sequence. First, an employer, a State or Territory agency, or a relative puts forward a nomination or sponsorship. Then the visa application is assessed against criteria that refer back to that earlier decision. Where the nomination has ceased, been withdrawn or been refused, the visa criteria that depend on it cannot be met, and the visa outcome follows automatically in most cases. PAM3 records this as a mandatory result for each subclass: for subclass 494, refusal is required where the nomination has been refused, withdrawn or has ceased; for subclass 491, refusal follows withdrawal of a State or Territory nomination, or the withdrawal or death of a family sponsor. Reconsidering the visa while that remains true tends to reproduce the same decision.

The linkage is also checked early, before the criteria stage. For subclass 482 and 494, PAM3 lists the associated nomination among the Schedule 1 validity items, alongside the form, the charge and the applicant's location. For subclass 491, the validity check includes whether a State nomination has been withdrawn or family sponsorship is in place. A nomination problem can therefore surface as an invalidity issue rather than a refusal on the merits, and PAM3 flags for subclass 491 that a Schedule 1 failure cannot be cured through tribunal review — which is why the front end of the sequence deserves attention.

What causes a nomination to cease, fail or be withdrawn?

The triggers differ by visa, but they share one feature: they depend on a third party rather than on anything you file.

Subclass 482. The approval ceases under regulation 2.75. PAM3 also records that where the sponsor's approval has lapsed, the nomination is invalid, and that the nominator must have been an approved work sponsor at the time of approval. Adverse information about the sponsor is assessed under regulations 1.13A and 1.13B.
Subclass 494. The approval ceases under regulation 2.75B, with the same consequence recorded in PAM3 — a nomination that has been refused, withdrawn or ceased means the visa must be refused.
Subclass 491. A State or Territory nomination continues unless the agency withdraws it in writing; family sponsorship ends if the sponsor withdraws or dies, and PAM3 treats either event as requiring refusal. Sponsorship can also fail on its own criteria: the sponsor must be at least 18, an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, usually resident in a designated regional area, and in the required relationship to you or your partner.

Since the nominator or sponsor controls the first decision, the practical question after refusal is whether that decision can be reinstated, replaced, or challenged on its own terms.

What is the review sequence for employer-sponsored 494 and 482 refusals?

This is the part that most often surprises applicants. PAM3 records an explicit ordering for subclass 494: after refusal, the primary applicant needs either a valid nomination or a nomination or sponsorship that is itself under review before applying to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART, referred to alongside its predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal) for review of the visa decision. Secondary applicants are not held to that condition.

Read against the criteria, the logic is direct. Regulation 494.213(1) cannot be satisfied while the nomination has ceased, so reconsidering the visa decision leaves the missing element in place. Subclass 482 turns on the same kind of criterion, through regulation 482.212(1) read with regulation 2.75, although the requirement that a primary applicant hold a valid or under-review nomination before applying for review is recorded expressly for subclass 494.

Take a hypothetical scenario. Suppose a subclass 494 nomination ceases under regulation 2.75B while the visa is undecided, and the visa is then refused on that basis. If the primary applicant seeks review while no nomination is in place and none is under review, the criterion still cannot be met and the review is likely to end where it started. If a replacement nomination has since been approved, or the nomination decision is itself under review, the criterion is capable of being satisfied and the review has something to work with.

Two further steps belong in this sequence, because they shape what the tribunal later sees. Before a refusal resting on this kind of concern, PAM3 requires the decision maker to put the matter to the applicant in writing: for subclass 494 this is described as a written notice inviting comment, and for subclass 482 as a written invitation to comment with a reasonable time to respond, together with natural justice steps where the concern involves adverse information about the sponsor. Where a nomination is refused or withdrawn, PAM3 also contemplates inviting the applicant to withdraw the visa application, with refusal following if that invitation is not taken up.

How does subclass 491 differ?

Subclass 491 has no employer nomination, so there is no regulation 2.75 or 2.75B cessation to work through. The dependency runs through regulation 491.217(1) and through the sponsorship criteria, and the counterparty is a government agency or a relative rather than an employer.

That changes the practical shape of the problem in three ways:

A State or Territory nomination is treated as continuing unless the agency withdraws it in writing. Once withdrawn, the criterion fails.
Family sponsorship carries its own fragility. PAM3 notes that where the relationship between the primary applicant and their spouse or de facto partner breaks down, the sponsorship base can fail. It also ends where the sponsor withdraws or dies.
The "usually resident" test for sponsors is assessed on evidence of actual residence — utilities, leases, tax records — rather than on stated intention.

The ordering lesson is therefore the same as for subclass 494 and 482: establish whether the nomination or sponsorship can be restored, replaced or challenged before treating the visa refusal as the main event.

How long do you have to apply for review?

The recorded windows run from the date you receive the refusal notification: 21 days for applicants in Australia and 28 days for applicants outside Australia for subclass 494 and subclass 482, and 21 days for subclass 491. These are the limits set out for these subclasses in the framework discussed here, and because time limits and effective dates can change, the current figures should be confirmed against the Department of Home Affairs' published guidance before you rely on them. What matters for planning purposes is that the clock does not pause while a nomination problem is being sorted out.

What has to happen before you apply for review?

Read the refusal record. Identify the exact criterion relied on. Check whether it turns on the nomination ceasing, being refused, or being withdrawn. Establish the current status of that nomination or sponsorship. Establish whether that separate decision sits within its own review window. Deal with that decision first. Check whether a replacement nomination can be put in place. Then decide whether review of the visa refusal can succeed. Keep in mind that the visa review window runs from receipt of the refusal notification and does not wait for the nomination issue to resolve. Finally, check your lawful status for the review period: the Department's published guidance for subclass 494 notes that a bridging visa is generally not available at that point, and that lawful status has to be maintained.

What can the tribunal reconsider, and what comes after it?

Merits review asks whether the correct decision was made on the material before the decision maker, taking into account further material put forward. It does not restart the visa from the beginning. Where a refusal turned on a missing criterion, review turns on whether that criterion can now be met — which is exactly why the nomination has to be dealt with first.

If the tribunal does not set the refusal aside, the framework also provides for judicial review in the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court. That jurisdiction is narrower. It addresses legal error and procedural unfairness, not a fresh assessment of the facts, and it is not another opportunity to argue whether the visa should have been granted.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I still apply for review if my employer's nomination has already ceased?

The option exists, but its usefulness depends on whether the missing criterion can be met. For subclass 494, PAM3 states that a primary applicant needs a valid nomination, or one under review, before seeking review of the visa refusal. Where neither is in place, review of the visa alone is likely to reach the same outcome.

Do secondary applicants face the same nomination requirement?

No. The PAM3 material for subclass 494 states that the requirement for a valid or under-review nomination applies to the primary applicant, and that secondary applicants are not subject to it. Family members still have to meet their own criteria, including the relationship and identity requirements that apply to them.

A State agency withdrew my subclass 491 nomination after I lodged — is review still open?

Regulation 491.217(1) requires that a State or Territory nomination not be withdrawn, so a confirmed withdrawal removes the basis for the grant. Review therefore turns on whether the withdrawal can be reversed or a fresh nomination obtained. If neither is possible, that criterion cannot be met at reconsideration.

Does lodging a review pause the deadline while I fix the nomination?

No. The review window runs from the date you receive the refusal notification and does not wait for the nomination issue to be resolved. The figures recorded for subclass 494 and 482 are 21 days in Australia and 28 days outside Australia, and 21 days for subclass 491, subject to confirmation against the Department's published guidance.

My subclass 491 sponsorship ended because my partner and I separated. Does that end the application?

It can. Where family sponsorship depends on a relationship to you or your partner, PAM3 notes that the breakdown of that relationship can cause the sponsorship base to fail. Sponsorship also ends where the sponsor withdraws or dies. Each removes the foundation on which the subclass 491 sponsorship criteria rest.

My application was found invalid rather than refused — is that different?

Yes. PAM3 lists the associated nomination among the Schedule 1 validity items for subclass 482 and 494, so a nomination linkage problem can arise before the criteria are even considered. Where the application fails at that stage, the described outcome is invalidity rather than a refusal on the merits; for subclass 491, PAM3 also flags that a Schedule 1 failure cannot be cured through tribunal review.

What can the courts do that the tribunal cannot?

Very little for most applicants. Judicial review in the Federal Court or Federal Circuit Court addresses legal error and procedural unfairness, and does not reconsider whether the visa should have been granted. It is not a further hearing on the merits of the case.