Why Are So Many Subclass 407 Training Visa Applications Refusal in 2026?
Over the past few weeks, we have received an unusually high number of refusals for Subclass 407 Training visa nominations.
Rather than pretending this is not happening, we believe our clients deserve an honest explanation.
The recent increase in refusals is not unique to Green Wings Migration. It reflects a much broader shift in how the Department of Home Affairs is assessing Training visa applications across Australia.
As migration professionals, we have a responsibility to explain what is changing, why it matters, and what applicants and employers should realistically expect before deciding to pursue a Subclass 407 Training visa.
An unusually difficult period for Subclass 407 visas
Since commencing practice in 2016, Green Wings Migration has maintained an overall approval rate of approximately 70% for Subclass 407 matters. While no migration agent can guarantee approvals, we consider this to be a strong outcome for a visa category that has always involved a significant degree of subjective assessment.
Unlike visas where eligibility depends largely on objective criteria, many Training visa decisions ultimately depend on whether the decision-maker is persuaded that the proposed occupational training genuinely satisfies Regulations 2.72A and 2.72B of the Migration Regulations 1994.
Reasonable people can sometimes reach different conclusions when assessing the same evidence.
However, July 2026 has been unlike anything we have experienced previously.
The Government has publicly announced increased scrutiny
The recent trend should not come as a complete surprise.
The Australian Border Force has publicly announced a national compliance operation targeting alleged misuse of the Training visa program.
According to the ABF, investigations identified concerns that some employers were using Subclass 407 visas as a cheaper alternative to genuine skilled sponsorship pathways.
At around the same time, significant procedural changes were introduced.
Since March 2026, applicants can no longer lodge the visa application and nomination simultaneously. The employer’s nomination must now be approved before the visa application can even be lodged.
These changes clearly indicate that the Department has adopted a much stricter approach to assessing Training visa nominations.
Why are nominations being refused?
The overwhelming majority of recent refusals rely on the same reasoning. Decision-makers conclude that:
the applicant already possesses sufficient theoretical knowledge and practical workplace skills to perform the occupation;
the proposed training is therefore not genuinely intended to enhance the applicant’s skills; and
the employer is instead attempting to use the Training visa program to fill an ongoing labour need that should be addressed through another visa, such as a Subclass 482 Skills in Demand visa.
In other words, the Department is increasingly asking whether the applicant genuinely needs further structured occupational training.
If the answer is “no”, the nomination is refused.
The difficulty with this approach
There is no doubt that some employers may have attempted to misuse the Training visa program.
In fact, the Department reported a dramatic increase in Subclass 407 lodgements in recent years, which undoubtedly contributed to the current crackdown.
However, broad policy shifts inevitably affect genuine applicants as well.
Many of the refusals we have recently received involve applicants who were exactly the type of people the Enhancing Skills stream appears designed to assist.
For example, some applicants had only recently completed their Australian studies and were seeking structured workplace training to develop practical skills in their profession.
Ironically, these applicants were refused because the Department considered their academic qualifications sufficient evidence that they already possessed the required knowledge.
This appears difficult to reconcile with the purpose of the Enhancing Skills stream itself.
After all, the stream exists to enhance practical workplace skills—not because applicants have no theoretical knowledge.
Some refusals also raise factual concerns
Perhaps more concerning is that some recent decisions appear to contain factual errors.
In one matter handled by our office, the refusal stated that the applicant had participated in the Australian hospitality industry for approximately 17 years. However, the applicant first entered Australia in 2022.
Errors of this nature naturally raise questions about whether every application has received the level of individual consideration that applicants are entitled to expect.
Is this similar to what happened with Student visas?
In many respects, yes. The current pattern closely resembles the significant increase in Student visa refusals experienced over recent years.
In both visa categories, policy settings appear to have shifted towards a much stricter interpretation of subjective legislative requirements.
The result is a much higher refusal rate, even where applicants may previously have been considered suitable.
Will more refusals solve the underlying problem?
That remains to be seen.
If the Government’s objective is to reduce long-term temporary migration and ensure that only genuine training opportunities are approved, stricter scrutiny is understandable.
However, refusals also have another consequence.
Applicants who believe their nominations have been incorrectly refused are entitled to seek review before the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART).
Given the current trend, it is reasonable to expect that the Tribunal will experience a significant increase in Subclass 407 review applications, much like it did following the increase in Student visa refusals.
Whether this ultimately reduces system pressures or simply transfers them from the Department to the Tribunal remains an open question.
Our commitment to clients
We believe transparency is important.
Yes, Green Wings Migration has recently received several Subclass 407 refusals.
We are not hiding that fact.
At the same time, we do not believe these recent outcomes accurately reflect the quality of our work or the strength of the applications that were prepared. Many of these refusals involve genuine employers, carefully developed training plans and applicants who, in our professional opinion, met the legislative requirements.
Where we believe a decision is legally or factually incorrect, we will advise our clients about the available review options and continue advocating on their behalf.
Migration law evolves constantly. Our role is not simply to lodge applications—it is to understand those changes, provide honest advice, and help our clients navigate an increasingly complex system.
This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy. If you want to know more or withdraw your consent to all or some of the cookies, please refer to the cookie policy.
By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse otherwise, you agree to the use of cookies.
