189, 190 or 491 Visa Refused After Invitation: What Happens When Your Points Cannot Be Proven?
Receiving a SkillSelect invitation is not the end of the points test. For Subclass 189, 190, and 491 applications, Home Affairs must verify that the applicant has genuinely earned the points they claimed and that they satisfy the points requirements at the relevant assessment date.
The current Migration Regulations provide that a points-tested Subclass 189 applicant’s assessed score must not be less than the score stated in the invitation and must not be below the qualifying score. Equivalent criteria apply to Subclass 190 and 491. SkillSelect only shows the points the applicant claims; the legal question is whether the applicant can prove those points under the Regulations and Schedule 6D.
How an applicant can lose points after invitation
- claimed skilled employment cannot be accepted for the full period;
- the applicant’s English test did not meet the claimed proficiency level at the relevant time;
- partner points cannot be established;
- the claimed Australian study, specialist education, NAATI or regional-study points are not legally available;
- the applicant’s marital or partner circumstances changed in a way that affects points;
- employment dates overlap or cannot be verified; or
- the evidence does not establish a qualification or attribute as claimed in the EOI.
Why the EOI is not proof
An Expression of Interest is a statement of claimed attributes. SkillSelect can calculate an indicative score from those entries, but the visa application still requires evidence. If the Department assesses the applicant at fewer points than the invitation score, the application may fail even though the invitation was genuine.
The relevant date matters
Many points rely on the applicant’s circumstances at the time of invitation. Age, English level, skilled employment, and partner attributes can all involve date-sensitive rules. Evidence obtained later may prove what existed at the time of invitation, but it cannot necessarily create an attribute that did not exist then.
What to do after a points refusal
- recalculate the score independently using the legislation, not just the EOI;
- identify exactly which points the Department removed;
- check whether the decision-maker used the correct dates;
- compare employment evidence with Schedule 6D requirements;
- check the English test and skills assessment validity at invitation; and
- review whether state nomination or family sponsorship points remain available.
ART review is not simply a second EOI
Where merits review is available, the Tribunal applies the law to the visa application and evidence. The strongest review cases usually identify a specific error in the points calculation or establish an attribute that existed at the legally relevant time. A review cannot be used to create a new points profile that the applicant did not have at the relevant time.
The current criteria are set out in the Migration Regulations 1994. Home Affairs also explains the SkillSelect process in its Expression of Interest guidance.
For broader skilled migration planning, see our General Skilled Migration page and ART Appeals service.
Sources checked 21 September 2026. This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Visa criteria and review rights depend on the exact application, decision and law in force.
Related Insights:
491 Subsequent Entrant Processing Time in 2026: Partner and Family Applications
Madhab Kharel
Principal Lawyer & Director, Emigrate Lawyers
Madhab Kharel is the Principal Lawyer and Director of Emigrate Lawyers, an Australian law firm assisting clients across Australia and internationally. His migration law practice includes Partner Visas, Protection Visas, visa refusals and cancellations, Administrative Review Tribunal matters, health and character issues, Schedule 3, Section 48, sponsorship limitations and employer-sponsored migration. He regularly advises clients with complex immigration histories and matters requiring detailed legal submissions and evidence strategy.
Reviewed by Madhab Kharel, Principal Lawyer
Date reviewed: 21 September 2026
