Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme Visa Lawyer

The situation. A worker has been sponsored on a 482 for just over two years, the last eighteen months with her current employer and the eight months before that with a previous sponsor after the first business restructured. She assumes the clock restarted when she changed employers.

Why that assumption is wrong. Since December 2024, sponsored work does not have to be with a single employer. Periods with previous sponsors count toward the two years, provided each employer held approved sponsorship for the whole of the period being relied on — a requirement tightened on 29 November 2025. The nominating employer must be the worker’s most recent sponsor, but the earlier time is not lost.

How we approach it. We map the employment history against sponsorship approval dates, not just against payslips, because the two do not always align. That analysis establishes the earliest date a TRT nomination can be lodged — which in cases like this is often materially earlier than the client expects.

Where it lands. Workers who believe they are twelve months from eligibility are sometimes eligible now. The calculation is worth doing properly rather than assuming.

The situation. A researcher aged 48 is told by a colleague that permanent residency through employer sponsorship is not available to him because of his age.

What the age rule actually does. The 186 generally requires the applicant to be under 45 at the time of application, but the requirement carries a defined set of exemptions. Two are available under either stream — academics nominated by an Australian university as a university lecturer or faculty head, and researchers, scientists or technical specialists nominated by a science agency or university. Under Direct Entry those categories also waive the skills assessment requirement. Others, including the high-income exemption and the regional medical practitioner exemption, are available only under Temporary Residence Transition.

How we approach it. The critical step is matching the category to the correct stream, because getting that pairing wrong is both easy and expensive. We assess exemption eligibility at the first consultation and prepare the submission with the specific evidence each category requires. Where the high-income exemption is in play, each qualifying year is measured against the threshold as it stood at the end of that year, not against the current figure — a detail that decides eligibility more often than it should.

Where it lands. An applicant who assumed the pathway was closed on age alone may have a straightforward route through an exemption — provided the argument is built for the right stream.

The situation. A worker approaching TRT eligibility discovers that his employer’s Standard Business Sponsorship lapsed for four months eighteen months ago, before being renewed. Nobody noticed at the time; the employment continued unchanged throughout.

Why this matters more than it sounds. Since 29 November 2025, a period of employment only counts toward the TRT requirement where the employer held approved sponsor or labour agreement status for the whole of it. Genuine, full-time work in the correct occupation does not count if the sponsorship was not current. A worker who believed he was months from permanent residency can find that part of his qualifying period has effectively been lost. The trap sits entirely on the employer’s side of the relationship, and the worker usually has no idea until it surfaces.

How we approach it. We track sponsorship validity against the worker’s qualifying period rather than assuming continuity, identify precisely which periods count, and recalculate the earliest lodgement date. For employers, we flag renewal dates as a standing compliance item so the problem does not recur across a workforce.

Where it lands. The change applies only to applications lodged on or after 29 November 2025, so timing and transitional position both matter. This is a calculation to do before lodging, not after a refusal.

The situation. A nomination is lodged and pending when the sponsoring business is sold. The applicant has been working toward permanent residency for years and now faces losing the nomination entirely through no fault of her own.

What is at stake. A 186 matter can be sound on the applicant’s side and still fail on the nomination — because the nominated position is no longer made out, or because the business is sold, restructured or enters administration while the nomination is pending. Whether a pending nomination survives can depend on how the transaction is structured, which is a question that is much easier to influence before completion than after.

How we approach it. Where we are involved early, we advise on transaction structures that preserve a pending nomination. Where a nomination has already been refused, there is a short statutory window to seek merits review at the Administrative Review Tribunal — fixed by regulation, running from the date of notification, and not extendable. The position description, genuine-need case and business evidence all come back into play on review.

Where it lands. Nomination failures caused by business change are among the most preventable outcomes in employer-sponsored work, and among the most damaging when they are not anticipated.