For employers sponsoring skilled workers in Australia, a visa refusal can create an immediate operational problem.
The business may have invested significant time and resources into recruitment, Labour Market Testing, nomination preparation and workforce planning. The sponsored worker may already be performing an important role in the organisation. Then a refusal arrives, and both the employer and the worker are left asking the same question:
What happens now?
A refusal does not necessarily mean that every pathway has ended. Depending on the type of decision, the circumstances of the applicant and the reasons for refusal, there may be an opportunity to seek merits review through the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). In some cases, judicial review through the courts may also be available.
However, review rights are technical, deadlines can be strict, and the correct strategy depends heavily on the decision that was made.
Understanding the difference between these pathways is therefore essential.
The AAT Is Gone: Understanding the ART in 2026
One of the first points employers and visa applicants should understand is that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) no longer operates.
The AAT was abolished and replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) on 14 October 2024.
The ART is now responsible for reviewing eligible migration decisions, including certain decisions involving visa refusals or cancellations and sponsorship matters.
This is more than a change of name. For anyone searching for information about an “AAT appeal” in 2026, the relevant review body is now the ART.
Importantly, not every migration decision can be reviewed.
The Department of Home Affairs decision letter should identify whether the decision is reviewable and who is entitled to apply. This is particularly important in employer-sponsored matters because the review rights associated with a visa refusal, nomination refusal or sponsorship decision may not necessarily belong to the same person.
The starting point should therefore always be the decision letter not assumptions based on what happened in another migration case.
What Does the ART Actually Review?
An ART review is generally a merits review.
In practical terms, the Tribunal considers the relevant decision and determines the correct or preferable outcome based on the applicable law and the material before it.
That distinction matters.
A review is not simply an opportunity to tell the Department that its decision was unfair. It is an opportunity to address the issues that resulted in the adverse decision and establish why the relevant requirements are satisfied.
For an employer-sponsored matter, those issues might relate to matters such as the nominated position, the sponsoring business, supporting financial evidence, employment arrangements, the applicant’s qualifications or experience, or another relevant visa or nomination criterion.
The strategy should therefore begin with a careful analysis of the refusal reasons.
What exactly was the decision-maker not satisfied about? Was important evidence missing? Was the evidence misunderstood? Is further evidence available? Are there weaknesses in the underlying nomination or sponsorship arrangements that need to be addressed?
These questions should be considered before determining whether review is the appropriate course.
Which Visa Refusals and Cancellations Can Go to the ART?
The ART can review various migration decisions made under the Migration Act 1958, including certain visa refusal, visa cancellation and sponsorship-related decisions. However, review rights depend on the particular decision and circumstances.
There are also decisions that the ART cannot review. For example, the Tribunal states that it cannot review certain visa cancellation decisions made personally by the relevant Minister, or a decision where the person seeking review is not legally entitled to make the application.
This is why employers and sponsored workers should avoid treating “ART appeal” as an automatic next step after every refusal.
The refusal notification should be reviewed carefully to establish:
- whether merits review is available;
- who has the right to lodge the review;
- the applicable deadline;
- what decision is actually under review; and
- what should happen with any related visa, nomination or sponsorship matter.
These issues can become particularly important where an employer-sponsored application involves several connected applications or approvals.
ART Deadlines Are Strict
One of the most important practical issues following a refusal is time.
The ART expressly states that time limits for migration reviews are strict. The applicable period depends on the type of decision and, in some circumstances, whether the person is in immigration detention. The relevant Department decision letter should specify the applicable review period.
Critically, the ART states that it does not have power to extend the time limit for applying for review.
That means employers and visa applicants should not wait until they have gathered every possible document before obtaining advice about review rights.
The immediate priorities after receiving an adverse decision should be to identify the deadline, determine who has review rights and assess whether a review should be lodged.
Evidence and submissions can then be managed according to the procedural requirements applying to the matter.
Missing the review deadline may mean losing the ART pathway altogether.
What Happens to the Worker’s Visa Status During Review?
This is another area where assumptions can create significant risk.
Lodging a review does not mean employers should simply assume that the worker can continue living and working in Australia under exactly the same conditions.
A person’s immigration status during a review depends on their individual circumstances, including their existing visa, any bridging visa held or available, and the conditions attached to that visa.
Even the Federal Circuit and Family Court notes that questions about whether a person will receive a bridging visa or visa extension as a result of court proceedings are matters for the Department of Home Affairs.
For employers, this means immigration status and work rights should be checked separately from the review itself.
Workforce planning should never be based on an assumption that lodging an ART application automatically preserves unrestricted work rights.
How Long Can an ART Migration Review Take?
Employers also need to be realistic about timing.
ART processing data shows that migration reviews can take a considerable period to finalise. For migration matters finalised between 1 December 2025 and 31 May 2026, half were finalised within approximately 1 year and 7 months, while 95% were finalised within approximately 2 years and 10 months. Processing times vary substantially by case category.
For example, the ART reported a median finalisation period of approximately 1 year and 7 months for nomination/sponsor approval reviews and 1 year and 4 months for skill-linked matters during that reporting period.
These figures are historical processing data rather than guarantees for an individual case.
Nevertheless, they demonstrate why an employer should think beyond the review application itself.
If the sponsored worker occupies a critical position, the business may need a workforce continuity plan while the migration matter remains unresolved.
What If the ART Review Is Unsuccessful?
An unsuccessful ART outcome does not automatically mean that another merits appeal is available.
At this stage, the question may shift from whether the decision was correct on its merits to whether the decision was made lawfully.
That is where judicial review may become relevant.
Certain migration decisions can be reviewed by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). However, judicial review is fundamentally different from an ART merits review.
The Court does not reconsider the visa application simply because the applicant disagrees with the outcome.
Instead, it considers whether a jurisdictional error occurred.
What Is a Jurisdictional Error?
A jurisdictional error is a legal error concerning the way the decision was made.
Depending on the circumstances, this may involve issues such as failing to follow required legal procedures, applying the wrong legal test, failing to consider a relevant matter, considering an irrelevant matter or denying procedural fairness.
This distinction is critical.
The Court cannot simply substitute its preferred migration outcome. It cannot reconsider the facts merely because another decision may have been available, and it cannot itself grant the visa.
If jurisdictional error is established, the Court may set aside the affected decision and remit the matter to the relevant decision-maker to be determined according to law.
Judicial review is therefore not an “ART appeal, round two”.
It is a separate legal process concerned with the lawfulness of the decision-making process.
Judicial Review Also Has a Deadline
Court proceedings also involve strict procedural requirements.
According to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, an application seeking judicial review of a migration decision generally must be filed within 35 days of the date of the migration decision. The Court may have power to extend that period, but an applicant seeking an extension must request it and explain the delay.
That is different from the ART position, where the Tribunal states that it has no power to extend the statutory deadline for lodging an eligible migration review.
Legal advice should therefore be sought promptly after an adverse ART outcome if judicial review is being considered.
What Employers Should Do After a Sponsored Visa Refusal
For an employer, the immigration review process is not only the worker’s personal matter. It can affect staffing, rostering, project delivery, compliance obligations and longer-term workforce planning.
The employer should first obtain a copy of the refusal or cancellation decision and ensure that the relevant review deadline is identified immediately.
The business should then preserve the records connected with the sponsorship and nomination, including employment documents, payroll information, organisational records, financial evidence and documents concerning the nominated role.
If additional evidence is requested during the review, the employer should respond promptly and ensure that information supplied to the Tribunal is consistent with the actual operation of the business.
At the same time, employers should continue monitoring the sponsored worker’s visa status and work rights rather than assuming that a pending review resolves those issues.
Most importantly, the business should consider workforce continuity.
If the review may take months or potentially longer the employer needs to understand how the position will be managed during that period and whether alternative recruitment or migration strategies should also be considered.
A Refusal Is a Decision Point, Not a Strategy
When an employer-sponsored visa application is refused, the instinctive response may be to appeal immediately.
But the better question is:
What is the strongest lawful pathway from here?
Sometimes that will be merits review before the ART. In other circumstances, the underlying problem may need to be addressed differently. If an ART decision involves jurisdictional error, judicial review may need to be considered.
The important point is that these pathways are not interchangeable.
An ART review examines the merits of an eligible migration decision. Judicial review examines whether a decision was made according to law. Each pathway has different requirements, limitations and deadlines.
For employers, responding quickly and strategically can also help minimise disruption to the wider workforce.
A refusal may be a setback. It should not, however, be allowed to become a larger compliance or workforce problem because the business failed to understand what needed to happen next.
Disclaimer
This publication contains general information only and is not legal advice. Immigration law and workplace law obligations may change, and outcomes vary depending on individual circumstances. Readers should obtain independent legal advice tailored to their specific situation before acting on any information contained in this article.
