Top Reasons the Department Refuses a Subclass 400 Application
Most Subclass 400 refusals are not close calls. They happen because the application answered a different question from the one the criteria ask. The business explained why it wanted the person here, when the criteria ask whether the work is highly specialised and non-ongoing and whether the person genuinely intends to leave.
This article sets out the refusal patterns we see most often, tied to the specific clauses that produce them. It is written for Australian businesses sponsoring an overseas specialist and for the specialists themselves, because a refusal here has consequences that outlast the project.
Why a refusal hurts more than you expect
Before the list, two pieces of context that change how seriously businesses take this.
The Subclass 400 requires the applicant to be outside Australia when they apply and when the decision is made. Section 338 of the Migration Act 1958 ties most visa refusal review rights to applications lodged inside Australia. In practice that means a refused 400 will generally not have a merits review pathway at the Administrative Review Tribunal, so there is no appeal to rescue a weak application. The remedy is usually a fresh, better application, which costs you the timeline.
Second, refusals leave a mark. Clause 400.213 requires the decision maker to consider whether the applicant complied substantially with the conditions of their last substantive visa, and Home Affairs states that it considers immigration history, so a person “might not be eligible for this visa if you have had a visa cancelled or refused”.
1. A business case that explains want, not need
Clause 400.211(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994 requires that the applicant “demonstrates that there is need for the applicant to be in Australia to participate in the event, or engage in the activity or work”.
Need is a higher bar than preference. Applications routinely explain that the specialist knows the company’s systems, has worked with the team before, or is the natural choice. All true, all beside the point. The question is why this work requires this person to be physically in Australia.
The applications that clear this comfortably usually answer three things directly. What is the task. Why can it not be done remotely. Why can it not be done by someone already here.
2. Ongoing work presented as a short project
Clause 400.222 requires that “The applicant’s engagement in the work will be non-ongoing.” Home Affairs defines non-ongoing work as work “that is likely to be completed within 6 months or less, and you do not expect or arrange to stay in Australia after this time for any reason related to that work.”
That second limb is where applications come apart. A case officer reading a support letter that mentions phase two, ongoing maintenance, a handover period later in the year, or the possibility of a permanent role is being told, in the applicant’s own words, that the engagement is not non-ongoing.
This is not a drafting trick to be managed by removing the sentence. If the work genuinely continues, the 400 is the wrong visa and an employer-sponsored pathway is the right one. We look at the mechanics of this in the non-ongoing requirement.
3. Skills that are specialised, but not unavailable
Clause 400.221 requires that the applicant “will undertake work that is highly specialised”. Home Affairs adds the practical filter: the skills, knowledge or experience must be able to assist Australian business and “can’t reasonably be found in the Australian labour market”.
Seniority is not scarcity. Twenty years of experience in a field where Australia has qualified practitioners does not establish that the skills cannot reasonably be found here. What does tend to land is specificity: a proprietary system only the manufacturer’s engineers are certified on, a piece of equipment with a closed service network, a certification not issued in Australia.
Home Affairs also notes the business “might need to show that they have tried to find Australian workers to do the work first”. If you have run recruitment, keep the evidence.
4. Adverse consequences for Australian workers
Clause 400.224 requires that the applicant “does not intend to engage in activities that will have adverse consequences for employment or training opportunities, or conditions of employment, for Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents”.
This clause is doing quiet work in a lot of refusals. If the role looks like a job an Australian could hold, or if bringing someone in on short stay terms appears to undercut local conditions, the criterion is not met. Applications that address it head on, rather than hoping it goes unnoticed, do better.
5. Weak evidence that the person will leave
Clause 400.213 requires that “The applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted”, having regard to compliance with conditions on previous visas, whether the applicant intends to comply with the 400 conditions, and any other relevant matter.
Home Affairs frames this as the genuine temporary entrant requirement and states that “You can’t use our temporary visa program to maintain ongoing residency in Australia.”
Thin home country ties feed straight into this. Ongoing employment abroad, family, property, and a clear reason to return all help. So does a clean compliance record. Repeated short stay visas covering what looks like continuous work does the opposite, because it suggests the temporary program is being used to sustain a presence rather than to complete a discrete task.
6. Financial evidence that does not add up
Clause 400.214 requires that the applicant has, or has access to, “adequate means to support himself or herself” during the intended stay. Home Affairs applies the same requirement to accompanying family and notes that family members included in the application are not permitted to work or study in Australia.
That last point catches businesses out. If a specialist brings a partner who cannot work, the household needs to be supported for the whole stay on one income or on savings. An application that budgets as though both adults will earn is not just thin, it is inconsistent with the visa conditions.
7. Entertainment activity in a work visa application
Clause 400.223 excludes performers comprehensively. The applicant must not be performing as an entertainer under a performing contract or for non-profit purposes, must not be supporting an entertainer or a group of entertainers, and must not be directing, producing or taking another part in a film, television or radio production to be shown or broadcast in Australia, or a theatre production, concert or recording to be performed in Australia.
Home Affairs states the position in plain terms on its Subclass 400 page and directs these applicants to the Subclass 408 Entertainment stream instead. Lodging a 400 for a performer is not a borderline call, it is an application against an express exclusion.
8. Information that turns out to be false or misleading
This is the most serious item on the list, and the least understood. Clause 400.215 requires the applicant to satisfy a set of public interest criteria, including PIC 4020.
PIC 4020(1) requires that there is no evidence the applicant has given, or caused to be given, a bogus document or “information that is false or misleading in a material particular” in relation to the application, or a visa held in the 12 months before it.
Then comes the part that does the damage. PIC 4020(2) requires the Minister to be satisfied that in the three years before the application, neither the applicant nor any member of their family unit has been refused a visa for failing PIC 4020(1). A finding under this criterion can therefore affect applications for years, and it reaches family members.
Two further details matter. PIC 4020(3) states that the criterion applies “whether or not the Minister became aware of the bogus document or information … because of information given by the applicant”. Volunteering a correction does not neutralise it. And PIC 4020(4) allows a waiver only where there are compelling circumstances affecting Australia’s interests, or compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen.
The practical lesson is unglamorous. Check every date, title, salary figure and qualification in the pack before it is lodged, including the ones supplied by a third party, because the applicant is responsible for what is given on their behalf.
Frequently asked questions
Can I appeal a Subclass 400 refusal?
Generally there is no merits review, because the application must be made and decided while the applicant is outside Australia and section 338 of the Migration Act ties most refusal review rights to onshore applications. If you have received a refusal, it is worth having the decision record read properly to confirm which pathway, if any, is open. Our appeals team can assess that.
Does a refusal stop us applying again?
Not automatically. A fresh application can be lodged, and it should address the reason for refusal directly rather than resubmitting the same material. The exception is a PIC 4020 finding, which can bar visas for three years, and ten years in identity cases.
How long does a Subclass 400 take to process?
Processing times move constantly and depend on the caseload and the completeness of the application. Home Affairs publishes a processing times guide based on recently decided applications, which is a better source than any figure quoted in an article.
The project genuinely is short. Why was it still refused?
The most common answer is evidence rather than substance. A genuinely short project that is described in general terms, with no explanation of why local labour cannot do it, reads the same as a weak one. The criteria are satisfied by what is in the file, not by what is true.
Are these the same reasons other visas get refused?
There is overlap, particularly around genuine intention and evidence quality. We cover the broader patterns in the mistakes case officers refuse applications for, and the 400 criteria specifically in our guide to whether the 400 is the right visa.
A realistic next step
If you have a Subclass 400 in preparation, read the support letter as a case officer would and ask a blunt question of every paragraph. Does this sentence prove need, specialisation, non-ongoing engagement, or intention to leave? If it does none of those, it is not helping, and if it hints at continuing work, it is actively hurting.
If you have already been refused, get the decision record reviewed before lodging again, because the second application usually fails for the same reason as the first when nobody has read why the first one failed.
If you would like a pre-lodgement review, or a refusal assessed, you can book a consultation with our migration lawyers.
About the author: Tina Nematian is the Principal Lawyer at One Planet Migration Law. She is admitted as an Australian Legal Practitioner and is a Registered Migration Agent, and has guided clients through partner, skilled, employer-sponsored, student, and humanitarian visa applications across Australia.
Legislative references in this article were checked against the Migration Regulations 1994 and the Migration Act 1958 as in force on 3 August 2026. Visa rules change frequently. Always check immi.gov.au before lodging.
This article is general information only and does not constitute legal or migration advice. Visa rules change frequently and outcomes depend on individual circumstances. Speak with a registered migration lawyer or agent before making any application.
