The Training visa (subclass 407) is now the most heavily refused visa program in Australia. In the 2025-26 year to 30 April 2026, 55 per cent of all 407 visa applications were refused or withdrawn, on Department of Home Affairs figures released through the Australian Border Force. We believe the position has hardened further since: of around 8,000 nominations finalised since July, we understand about 6,500 have been refused.
Two more things have changed. Since 11 March 2026, the nomination must be approved before the visa can be lodged. And delegates have started refusing nominations for a reason that catches sponsors off guard: the nominee is considered too experienced for the training to be genuine.
What changed on 11 March 2026
The Migration Amendment (Training Visas-Sponsorship Requirements) Regulations 2026 took effect on 11 March 2026. A 407 visa application can now only be lodged after the sponsorship is approved and the nomination is approved. Commonwealth agency sponsors still need sponsorship approval, but no nomination. Applications lodged before 11 March were not affected. Lodge without the approvals in place and the application is invalid: the Department notifies the applicant and refunds the visa application charge.
Until March, all three applications could be lodged together. That flexibility mattered most onshore, because a bridging visa only arises once a valid visa application is lodged. Now there is nothing to bridge onto until the nomination is approved, and a non-priority nomination can take months. The Department’s own guidance says it plainly: applicants may need to leave Australia, or apply for a different visa, while they wait.
That one change has slowed new onshore applications to a trickle. Many applicants run out of visa time before a valid application can exist. That is much of the point.
For sponsors, the planning rule is simple: lodge the sponsorship and nomination well before the training start date, and have a plan for the trainee’s visa status in the meantime.
The integrity crackdown behind the rule change
The rule change is one part of a wider push. In May 2026 the Australian Border Force launched a national compliance operation on the 407 program, led by the Department’s Sponsor Monitoring Unit and run with the Fair Work Ombudsman. Officers made more than 100 site visits in the first month, across six states and territories, with more than 200 workplaces on the list for the four-month operation. The early findings: employers without genuine training plans, and trainees working in roles unrelated to their approved training.
ABF Commander John Taylor put it plainly: “These visas are for genuine skills development, not for employers to misuse or underpay workers.”
The same release carried the 55 per cent figure. The ABF put it down to delegate scrutiny and the quality of some applications. The Department’s rationale for the March changes points the same way. It wants to reduce “permanent temporariness”: people unlikely to qualify for permanent residence extending their stay through one temporary visa after another, which also leaves them open to exploitation.
Within the profession, the picture is starker again. We understand the Department regards most of the recent surge in lodgements as failing the eligibility requirements. We believe about 6,500 of the roughly 8,000 nominations finalised since July have been refused. We also understand around 2,500 visa applications are on hand with a section 57 natural justice letter issued after a nomination refusal, another 4,000 or so are waiting behind refused nominations, and high refusal volumes are expected to continue.
A program that approved most well-prepared applications for years now refuses far more than it grants.
The new refusal pattern: too experienced to train
The shift shows up at file level, and practitioners across the profession are reporting the same thing: sponsors with long, unremarkable approval histories under the Enhancing Skills stream running into refusals, on applications lodged months apart, decided with strikingly consistent reasoning.
The principal concern in each decision was that the nominee was too qualified, or too experienced, for the proposed arrangement to represent a genuine training opportunity. The delegates placed significant weight on existing qualifications, post-qualification employment, and the fact that the person was already working in, or close to, the nominated occupation. Several decisions went further and suggested the primary purpose appeared to be ongoing employment and continued stay in Australia rather than occupational training.
The other recurring concern was that nominees were undertaking productive full-time work, which was read as evidence of employment dressed up as training.
Both concerns deserve some scrutiny, because they sit awkwardly with how the visa is designed.
The Enhancing Skills paradox
This is an interesting approach in the context of the Enhancing Skills stream, which by its nature requires the nominee to already have relevant experience: at least 12 months of full-time work in the occupation within the previous 24 months. You cannot enhance skills that do not exist.
So every eligible nominee is experienced by design, and there is now an increasingly subjective line being drawn between having enough experience to qualify for the stream and having so much that, in the delegate’s view, no genuine training need remains. That line is not written in the regulations. It is a judgement call, and at the moment it is running against anyone who looks workplace-ready.
The distinction that survives is the one the stream always intended. Enhancing means moving someone to a level they cannot reach by simply doing their job. A tradesperson who is good on the tools but has never been taught to run a job has a real skills gap. A worker doing the same tasks at the same level, with a training plan wrapped around their ordinary duties, does not.
Before nominating, ask the uncomfortable question: if this person can already do the job to the standard we need, what are we training them in, and why now?
The productive work problem
The productive work concern is also somewhat difficult to reconcile with the nature of workplace-based training, where a significant proportion of any genuine program will necessarily involve supervised practical application on the job rather than classroom-style instruction. Refusing a nomination because the trainee performs productive work proves too much, because every workplace-based trainee performs productive work.
What the decisions really test is whether the file lets a delegate tell supervised development from ordinary labour. A strong plan separates instruction and observation from supervised practice, names the trainers and their qualifications, includes a skills gap analysis specific to this nominee, and shows progression with measurable milestones. A generic plan reads, in this climate, as a job description with training headings.
What happens after a nomination refusal
Where a visa application is already on hand, a short window opens before the visa itself is decided. It is administrative practice rather than a period set by the legislation, so it confers no right and it can be shorter.
There are four routes out: review at the Tribunal, a fresh nomination linked to the visa already lodged, a different visa, or departure. They carry very different costs, and an onshore refusal leaves the applicant in a very different position from a withdrawal. We have set all four out, with the section 57 mechanics and what a Tribunal review actually costs, in what happens after a 407 nomination refusal.
What sponsors should do now
If you sponsor trainees, I think four things follow from all of this.
Treat the training plan as the application. For sponsors that have historically used standardised training frameworks across cohorts of trainees, I think those days are over. The program needs to look genuinely bespoke to the individual nominee: their assessed competency, their specific gap, a progression that only makes sense for them. If two nominees have identical plans, expect both to be scrutinised.
Plan around the nomination, not the visa. The nomination is the gate. Lodge early, know the trainee’s visa expiry, and have a plan for the gap, which may mean applying from offshore.
Keep pending files current. A nomination sitting in the queue for months should not sit untouched. Updated financials, a current lease and evidence the training arrangements are still on foot give the delegate reasons to approve. A file that has aged quietly gives them none.
Be honest about the purpose. If the real need is a worker, the 407 is the wrong visa, and in 2026 it will very likely be a refused visa. That need belongs with the Skills in Demand (subclass 482) program, or a labour agreement where the standard rules do not fit. If the 482 was rejected as too expensive, rerun the numbers against the cost of a refusal: lost fees, lost time, and a refusal record against both the business and the nominee. We work through this trade-off with employers as part of a broader corporate immigration strategy, and the employer sponsored visa options are usually the sturdier answer where the person is already doing the job.
Where this leaves the 407
The 407 is not closed, but it will not be used at anything like the scale it once was. Genuine programs with well-evidenced skills gaps still get approved, and the visa remains right for registration and licensing pathways, overseas placements and true professional development.
What has ended is the 407 as the flexible fallback: the quasi work visa for candidates who narrowly miss a Skills in Demand (subclass 482) pathway, and the cohort training program lodged with confidence because last year’s version was approved.
What is most striking is the speed of it. Taken together, the refusal statistics, the compliance operation and the March rule change look less like isolated delegate decision-making and more like a deliberate shift in the Department’s approach. Sponsors who adjust to it, with bespoke programs and an honest purpose, can keep using the visa. Sponsors who do not will keep feeding the refusal statistics.
If you sponsor trainees, or you are weighing a 407 against a 482, get the strategy right before anything is lodged. Book a consultation and we will map the options against the current climate.
Andrew Heathcote, Registered Migration Agent (MARN 0850840)
Frequently asked questions
Can you still apply for a 407 training visa in 2026?
Yes. The program remains open, but since 11 March 2026 the visa application can only be lodged after the sponsorship and the nomination are both approved, and applications are being assessed far more strictly. Well-designed programs with a genuine, evidenced skills gap are still approved.
Why are 407 nominations being refused?
The most common current reasons are that the nominee is considered too qualified or experienced for the training to be genuine, that the primary purpose appears to be employment and continued stay in Australia rather than training, and that the training plan is generic rather than tailored to the individual nominee.
What is the 407 visa refusal rate?
Australian Border Force reporting states that 55 per cent of subclass 407 visa applications in the 2025-26 financial year to 30 April 2026 were refused or withdrawn. We understand the nomination refusal rate has since climbed higher still: of around 8,000 nomination applications finalised since July 2026, we believe approximately 6,500 have been refused.
What happens if a 407 nomination is refused?
A short window opens before the visa is decided, and there are four routes out: review at the Tribunal, a fresh nomination linked to the visa already lodged, a different visa, or departure. Each carries different costs and consequences. See what happens after a 407 nomination refusal for the detail.
What are the alternatives if a 407 is too risky?
Where the real need is an ongoing skilled worker, the Skills in Demand (subclass 482) visa is usually the correct product, and labour agreements can cover occupations or circumstances the standard programs do not. The right answer depends on the occupation, the salary and the candidate’s circumstances.