482 Nomination Refused Because the Position Was Not Genuine: ART Evidence and Strategy
A Subclass 482 nomination can be refused even where the sponsoring business is genuine and the proposed employee is qualified. One recurring refusal ground is that Home Affairs is not satisfied that the nominated position itself is genuine. Regulation 2.72(10) requires the position associated with the occupation to be genuine and, subject to limited exceptions, full-time.
This article focuses specifically on the genuine position refusal issue. For the broader refusal framework, see our Visa Refusal Lawyers Australia hub and Sponsorship and Nomination Refusal Lawyers page.
What does “the position is not genuine” usually mean?
The Department may question whether the business genuinely needs the role, whether the proposed duties match the nominated occupation, whether the role fits the size and nature of the business, or whether the position appears to have been created mainly to facilitate a visa outcome.
Evidence that can be relevant
- Organisational charts showing where the role fits.
- Existing employee roles and reporting lines.
- Business plans, contracts, client demand and growth evidence.
- Financial records demonstrating capacity and operational activity.
- Detailed position descriptions tied to actual business functions.
- Recruitment records and labour market evidence where applicable.
- Evidence explaining why existing staff cannot absorb the duties.
- Historical evidence showing the role or function existed before the nomination.
Why generic duty statements are risky
A position description copied from ANZSCO or a template may establish what the occupation usually does, but not why this business genuinely needs this position. A stronger nomination links the duties to the sponsor’s real clients, workflow, revenue model, staffing and operations.
Illustrative case example: growing business, weak original nomination
Composite example: A small company nominated a specialist role while rapidly expanding. The nomination was refused because the original application contained a generic duty list and limited evidence of growth. For review, the business produced signed contracts, revenue growth, project schedules, a staffing chart, evidence of workload distribution and a detailed explanation of how the role would service new clients. The case shifted from “we need this worker” to “this is the operational function, workload and commercial evidence proving why the position exists”.
What happens to the related 482 visa application?
A visa application linked to a refused nomination cannot simply proceed as though the nomination were approved. The employer and visa applicant should check the decision letters, review rights and timing carefully. In some cases, strategic decisions are needed about seeking ART review, lodging a new nomination, requesting the visa application be held, or managing bridging visa consequences.
ART review is a merits review
Where ART review is available, the aim is not merely to criticise the Department’s reasoning. The review should address the genuine-position criterion with the best current evidence and a coherent explanation of the business need. The Tribunal can consider the material within the scope of its review powers and applicable law.
How this issue differs from a general 482 nomination refusal
For the separate question of what happens to a visa application after any 482 nomination refusal, see our existing guide on 482 nomination refusal and the visa application. This article is deliberately narrower: it targets the genuine-position criterion and the evidence needed to answer it.
The current Migration Regulations set out the genuine-position criterion in regulation 2.72. Employers facing refusal should obtain advice before the review deadline. See our ART Appeals page and Visa Refusal Lawyers hub.
General information only. Review rights and nomination criteria depend on the decision, stream and law in force.
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
