The Department of Home Affairs has confirmed a large increase in refusals affecting the Subclass 407 (Training) visa. If you are sponsoring a 407 applicant, or you have a 407 application in progress, it is worth understanding what has changed and why acting quickly now matters.

The Subclass 407 is a temporary Training visa. It allows someone to come to Australia to complete workplace-based occupational training that builds their skills in a particular job or field of expertise.

Getting a 407 visa involves three approvals, and after the rules changed in March 2026, they must be obtained in order:

1. Sponsorship: The employer must first hold Temporary Activities Sponsor (TAS) approval.
2. Nomination: The sponsor then has the specific training program approved.
3. Visa application: Only once both of the above are approved can the person lodge their 407 visa application.
   
   

This sequential dependency is central to the current wave of refusals. Because a 407 visa cannot be granted without an approved nomination, a nomination refusal means the associated visa application has no basis to succeed.

What the Department has confirmed

Since July this year, around 6,500 of roughly 8,000 finalised 407 nominations have been refused. The Department has said most of these applications simply did not meet the requirements, and it expects refusals to continue in high numbers over the coming weeks and months.

The Department is currently holding:

• about 2,500 visa applications where a Section 57 letter (explained below) has already been sent after the nomination was refused; and
• about 4,000 visa applications where the nomination has been refused but the visa itself has not yet been assessed.

What happens to the visa when the nomination is refused

Section 57 Natural Justice letter. Before refusing a visa for certain reasons, the Department generally has to give the applicant formal notice of what the problem is and give them a chance to respond first. That warning is called a Section 57 Natural Justice letter. Where the only issue is that the nomination has been refused, the Department will usually send one of these letters and allow 28 days to reply.

Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE). To hold a 407, the applicant must also satisfy the Genuine Temporary Entrant requirement. In plain terms, they must genuinely intend to come for training and stay temporarily, and not use the visa mainly to keep living and working in Australia. This is a judgement made by the case officer; there is no simple pass-or-fail test. If the Department decides the applicant also fails the GTE requirement, it can refuse the visa on that basis without first sending a Section 57 letter.

The Department has said its current practice is to wait about 14 days after a nomination refusal before deciding the visa, to give people a short window to weigh up their options. But this is current practice only, not a legal entitlement - it is NOT guaranteed, and the Department can change it at any time.

Our view: The biggest risk is the GTE requirement

The part that creates the most risk is the GTE requirement because it is inherently a subjective judgement call. There is no objective test that tells an applicant or sponsor in advance whether a particular case officer will identify a GTE concern.

That matters because of the reasoning behind many of the recent nomination refusals. Case officers have increasingly questioned whether genuine training really exists where the nominee is already well qualified and experienced - in some cases concluding that the real purpose is ongoing employment, or simply continued stay in Australia, rather than training. That same reasoning can carry across to the visa applicant’s own GTE position.

The practical consequence is this: Do not assume a Section 57 letter will be sent after a nomination refusal. Once a nomination is refused, the safest assumption is that the visa is at immediate risk of refusal.

Do not rely on the 14-day window

The Department's 14-day practice is useful to know, but it should not be used as a planning deadline. There are too many variables to safely assume a visa will stay undecided for the full period. In particular:

• the 14 days is current practice, not a legal entitlement;
• GTE is a subjective assessment by the case officer;
• the Department has confirmed a GTE refusal can happen without a Section 57 letter;
• processing practices can change; and
• the timing of any individual decision ultimately remains within the Department’s control.

For these reasons, waiting for a Section 57 letter before reviewing the applicant’s position may carry significant risk.

Where a nomination is refused, review the position immediately rather than waiting for further contact from the Department. Depending on the circumstances, that review should weigh:

• whether there is a genuine basis for lodging a further nomination;
• whether to seek a review of the nomination refusal;
• whether another visa pathway is available;
• the applicant's current visa position, including any bridging visa;
• what a visa refusal would mean for any future or further onshore applications; and
• whether the pending visa application should be withdrawn before the Department decides it.

Where there is no realistic prospect of putting a valid nomination in place, withdrawing the associated visa application may be better than letting an avoidable refusal be recorded. This applies particularly for someone who is already in Australia on a bridging visa, because an onshore refusal can limit the further applications they can make while in Australia.

However, withdrawal has its own consequences, including for the bridging visa that keeps the person lawful.

Neither option should be treated as automatic; the applicant's full immigration position should be assessed first, then a strategy settled on as quickly as possible.

What this means for new applications

Nominations are now scrutinised far more closely than in the past, so a new 407 application needs to demonstrate genuine training clearly and up front. A strong application is built around a structured program tailored to the individual nominee, and in particular shows:

• the skills and experience the nominee already has;
• the specific skills gaps that remain;
• why those gaps genuinely require structured workplace training, rather than ordinary work or general professional development;
• how each part of the training targets an identified gap;
• how the training will be supervised, and how competency will be assessed along the way; and
• the capability the nominee is expected to reach by the end.

It helps to think of these as a single chain of evidence: existing capability → identified gap → tailored training → assessment → target capability. Programs that are heavily standardised across multiple employees, padded with generic professional development, or do not clearly explain why an experienced person still needs training are the ones most likely to be questioned or refused.

Abacus comment

The scale of refusals now confirmed by the Department marks a significant moment for the Subclass 407 program. The clarification is especially useful as it was obtained directly from the Department via professional liaison channels, giving a clearer picture of how visa applications are being handled once a nomination is refused.

The main message we take from it is the need to act promptly: Because a visa can be refused on GTE grounds with no Section 57 letter beforehand, affected applicants should not assume they will receive any further correspondence before their visa is decided. Our view is that any nomination refusal be reviewed as soon as it is received, with the associated visa application, the applicant's bridging visa position, and any alternative strategy all considered at the same time.

We will keep monitoring this area closely, including any further guidance from the Department and how decision-making trends develop across the program.

This newsletter is a general summary for information only and is not legal advice. Anyone affected by a Subclass 407 nomination or visa refusal should seek advice on their specific circumstances.