407 Training Plan Problems: Common Nomination Refusal Issues
The training plan is one of the most important documents in many subclass 407 matters. A strong plan does more than list daily duties. It should explain why occupational training is required, what the nominee will learn, how the training will be delivered and supervised, and how progress will be measured.
407 training plan problems can lead to concerns at nomination stage even where the sponsor and nominee genuinely intend to undertake training. This guide identifies recurring weaknesses that should be addressed before lodgement or after a nomination refusal.
The subclass 407 is for occupational training
Home Affairs recognises three broad occupational training types under the Training visa program. The nomination requirements differ according to the purpose of the training. A plan should therefore be built around the correct training type rather than using a generic workplace induction document.
A plan copied from a previous employee or another occupation can create inconsistencies between the nominee’s background, the nominated occupation and the claimed training need.
Problem 1: the plan reads like an ordinary job description
A common weakness is a document that lists productive work tasks without identifying the learning component. A job description tells a worker what they do. A training plan should also explain what capability is being developed, who teaches it, how learning progresses and how competence is assessed.
Where the proposed activities look indistinguishable from ordinary employment, the Department may examine whether the arrangement genuinely meets the relevant training criteria.
Problem 2: no clear skills gap
If the nominee already has substantial experience, the plan should explain what additional skill or professional capability they need to develop. Simply stating that the person wants “Australian experience” or “more knowledge” may be too broad.
A useful skills-gap analysis can compare:
- the nominee’s present qualifications and experience;
- their current demonstrated competencies;
- the specific competencies to be developed;
- why those competencies are relevant to the proposed training purpose; and
- how the plan addresses each gap.
Problem 3: generic learning objectives
Objectives such as “improve communication”, “learn management” or “gain practical skills” provide little information about what success looks like. Objectives should be specific enough for a reviewer to understand what will change between the beginning and end of the program.
Problem 4: weak supervision arrangements
A training plan should identify who supervises the nominee and why that person is qualified to provide the training. The proposed trainer’s role, qualifications, experience and availability can all be relevant.
If one supervisor appears to be responsible for numerous workers or is rarely present at the nominated workplace, explain how genuine supervision will occur.
Problem 5: the timetable does not show progression
Structured training generally develops over time. A plan that repeats the same duties every month can make it difficult to see how the nominee progresses.
Consider dividing the program into stages, with each stage identifying learning outcomes, activities, supervision methods and assessment points.
Problem 6: training duration is not justified
The proposed length should make sense having regard to the skills gap and training content. A lengthy program for basic tasks may attract scrutiny, while an unrealistically short program can undermine the claimed development objective.
Problem 7: the plan conflicts with the nominee’s CV
The Department may compare the training plan with the nominee’s employment history and qualifications. If the nominee claims to need training in tasks they have apparently performed at a high level for years, explain the difference rather than ignoring it.
For example, the proposed program might involve advanced Australian regulatory practice, a new production system or a specialist methodology not covered by earlier experience. If that is the case, say so precisely and support it.
Problem 8: the workplace cannot deliver the stated training
The sponsor should be able to show that the nominated workplace has the staff, systems, equipment and operational activity needed to deliver the program. A sophisticated training plan is not persuasive if the business does not appear capable of implementing it.
Problem 9: inconsistent documents
The training plan, nomination form, organisational chart, employment documents and visa application should tell a consistent story. Differences in job title, hours, workplace, trainer or duties can create avoidable credibility concerns.
Our subclass 407 document checklist can help sponsors organise the supporting material before lodgement.
What to do after a refusal based on the training plan
Do not immediately rewrite the document from scratch without understanding the refusal. Map each adverse finding against the relevant part of the plan and supporting evidence.
Then decide whether the appropriate response is an ART review, a fresh nomination, a fresh visa strategy or another employer-sponsored pathway. Our guide on what happens after a 407 nomination refusal explains the decision sequence.
A practical pre-lodgement test
Ask a person who has never seen the business to read the plan and answer five questions:
- What does the nominee already know?
- What specifically do they need to learn?
- Who will teach them?
- How will the training progress?
- How will the sponsor know the objectives were achieved?
If the answers are not obvious, the plan may need further work.
If you need assistance reviewing a subclass 407 training plan or responding to a nomination refusal, contact Emigrate Lawyers.
Related guides: Read what happens after a 407 nomination refusal and our guide to procedural fairness after a 407 refusal.
Official resource: Home Affairs subclass 407 occupational training types.
This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice.
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: 19 September 2026
