Most employers see a 482 and 186 nomination as a single form submitted through ImmiAccount. What sits behind that form, when the work is done properly, is several weeks of preparation covering labour market testing, position analysis, financial evidence, and legal argument. This preparation is what usually decides whether a nomination is approved on the first attempt, refused, or sent back with a request for further information.

This article walks through the two areas that most often decide the outcome of a 482 and 186 nomination: labour market testing and the genuine position requirement. It also explains why engaging a migration agent with practical experience in submissions matters, and what can still be done if a nomination has been refused.

Labour Market Testing

Labour Market Testing (LMT) is a statutory requirement for Subclass 482 (Skills in Demand) nominations under section 140GBA of the Migration Act 1958. The employer must demonstrate that they have tested the Australian labour market and been unable to fill the position with an Australian citizen or permanent resident.

The rules are prescriptive, and the errors that trip employers up are usually not obvious until a Case Officer asks about them. Advertisements must run for at least 28 consecutive days on approved platforms, one of which must be Workforce Australia Job Search. They must include the position title (or a description of the position), the name of the approved sponsor (or their recruitment agent), the salary or salary range where the annual salary is below the specified threshold, and enough detail for a suitable applicant to identify the role. The advertising must have been placed within the four months before the nomination is lodged.

Common problems we see when reviewing employer-run LMT include:

• Advertising placed only on platforms that are not “approved” for LMT purposes
• Salary described as “market rate” or “negotiable” where a range was required
• Position titles that do not match the nominated ANZSCO occupation
• LMT that has expired because the nomination was delayed past the four-month window
• Screenshots that do not clearly evidence the advertisement date range

Where LMT is defective, the nomination is at real risk. In some cases the employer will need to re-run the advertising and wait another 28 days before lodging, which can push the whole matter back by two or three months. Getting the LMT right the first time is not administrative housekeeping. It is often the single point that separates an approved nomination from a refused one.

The Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) nomination does not require LMT in the same form, but the underlying principle of demonstrating a genuine need for an overseas worker still runs through the file. Under the Direct Entry stream, the evidence needs to show that the position is real, ongoing, and genuinely required by the business.

The Genuine Position Requirement

The second area where nominations succeed or fail is the “genuine position” test. For 482 nominations this sits in section 140GBC of the Act. For 186 nominations, the equivalent requirements are set out under Regulation 5.19. In both cases the Department must be satisfied that the position associated with the nominated occupation is genuine.

The Department reads this narrowly. It is not enough to say the position exists on paper. The evidence must show that the role has been created for legitimate business needs, that the tasks align with the ANZSCO unit group, and that the business has the capacity to employ the nominee at the required salary.

The kind of evidence that supports a genuine position submission includes:

• Financial statements and BAS returns showing the business can support the salary
• Organisational charts showing where the position fits within the business
• Position descriptions that map to the ANZSCO unit group tasks, not aspirational duties written to inflate the role
• Evidence of the need for the role, such as growth data, service contracts, or workflow analysis
• For hospitality and retail occupations, evidence that the business is not caught by an ANZSCO caveat under Legislative Instrument LIN 24/093 (for example, the limited-service restaurant caveat for Chefs and Cooks, or the small business turnover thresholds for Retail Managers)

Most of the work we do on a genuine position submission is done before a single form is opened. We review the business, map the duties against ANZSCO, identify caveat risks, and build the argument on the evidence that is actually available. Where the evidence is thin, we tell the employer what needs to be gathered before lodgement rather than lodging and hoping the Case Officer will overlook the gaps.

Why an Experienced Agent Matters for a 482 and 186 Nomination

Migration law is not static. The Skills in Demand visa replaced the TSS visa in December 2024. The Core Skills Occupation List continues to evolve. Salary thresholds shift each financial year. Occupational caveats change how ANZSCO codes are read for Chefs, Cooks, Retail Managers, and others. Requirements for LMT platforms and advertisement content have shifted several times.

An experienced agent brings three things to the preparation stage.

The first is familiarity with how Case Officers read submissions. A statement of position that looks reasonable to a layperson can miss the specific elements a Case Officer is trained to look for. Submissions structured against the legislative criteria, with evidence indexed to each element, are easier to assess and more likely to be approved without further requests.

The second is judgement about when to lodge and when to hold. Sometimes the sensible advice is to delay lodgement by a fortnight to collect a stronger piece of evidence, or to switch the nominated occupation to one that better fits the actual duties. Employers who lodge without this analysis often find themselves responding to a Natural Justice letter under section 57 of the Migration Act, which is a much harder position to argue from than the initial application.

The third is experience in drafting legal submissions. This becomes especially important where the case involves character issues, previous refusals, complicated business structures, or an ANZSCO occupation with restrictive caveats. Written submissions that address the criteria clearly, cite the correct legal instruments, and anchor the argument in evidence carry weight that a bare form submission does not.

When a Nomination Is Refused

A refusal is not the end of the matter. Refusals happen, and they do not always mean the nomination was without merit. Some refusals turn on genuine evidentiary gaps. Others turn on a Case Officer’s view of the evidence that another decision-maker, properly guided by submissions, may see differently.

A refused nomination can be reviewed on its merits by the Administrative Review Tribunal under section 338 of the Migration Act, provided the application for review is made within the strict time limits. Missing the review deadline forecloses this option entirely, which is one of the reasons the first legal advice after a refusal is often the most important step.

The Tribunal reviews the decision afresh. New evidence can be put forward. Submissions can be updated to respond directly to the Case Officer’s specific concerns. Where the refusal turned on a misapplication of policy or a factual error, the Tribunal is empowered to set the decision aside and substitute a new one. In practice, well-prepared merits review submissions succeed more often than employers expect, particularly where the earlier refusal was based on evidentiary gaps that can now be filled.

Even where merits review is not the right path, a refused nomination often sets the groundwork for a stronger re-application. The Case Officer’s decision record tells you exactly which elements were not accepted. That information, properly analysed, allows the next application to be built on evidence and argument that directly answers the earlier concerns.

The Point

Nominations look procedural. They are not. The work that goes into a well-prepared 482 or 186 nomination sits in the LMT, the genuine position evidence, the ANZSCO analysis, and the written submission that ties it together. When that preparation is done properly, the nomination usually moves through decision without much trouble. When it is not, the outcome is often a refusal that could have been avoided, a Natural Justice letter that demands a full response, or a merits review that could have been unnecessary.

If you have a 482 or 186 nomination in preparation, or a nomination that has been refused, our team is happy to review the file and give you a candid assessment of where it stands and what can be done.