How our client was granted her Employer Nomination Scheme (Subclass 186) visa in the Direct Entry stream ahead of published processing times
Have you ever wondered why certain Subclass 186 visa applications are processed much more quickly than other Subclass 186 visa applications, even in the same stream?
We often get asked by clients: “How long will my Subclass 186 visa application take to be granted? How do I shorten the processing times for my Subclass 186 visa application? Why did this person get granted their Subclass 186 visa before me?”
Case study
We recently assisted a client and her employer with lodging their Employer Nomination Scheme (Subclass 186) nomination and visa applications on 10 April 2025, during which the Department’s published processing times indicated that:
50% of Subclass 186 visa applications in the Direct Entry stream were finalised in 17 months; and
90% of Subclass 186 visa applications in the Direct Entry stream were finalised in 20 months.
Despite these published processing times, the employer’s Subclass 186 nomination application was approved in 6 months on 10 October 2025, and our client was granted her Subclass 186 visa just 3 days later on 13 October 2025.
So why was our client granted her Subclass 186 visa so much quicker than other visa applicants?
How did our client get granted her Subclass 186 visa in just over 6 months, as compared to the 17 - 20 months most other Subclass 186 visa applicants were waiting to be granted their visas?
There are several factors which may have contributed to the faster processing of our client’s Subclass 186 visa application.
1) We assisted our client and her employer with preparing a well-documented Subclass 186 nomination and visa application which were each accompanied by detailed legal submissions.
In particular, our client and her employer’s nomination and visa applications were supported and substantiated by documentary evidence that extended beyond the Department of Home Affairs’ generic list of documents, and prepared in accordance with a detailed and personalised document checklist which we provided them with upon the commencement of legal work.
We provided them with ongoing support on gathering these documents and addressing all necessary points in documents such as the business’s genuine statement and our client’s Curriculum Vitae, cross-checking all of their supporting documents to ensure that they were not only true and accurate, but also consistent with the information in their nomination and visa applications.
Additionally, we also prepared detailed legal submissions addressing our client and her employer’s satisfaction of the relevant regulatory criteria for the approval of the nomination and the grant of the Subclass 186 visa application, clearly explaining how each regulatory criterion was met, and referring the Department of Home Affairs to relevant document and departmental policy that substantiated this.
This ensured that the delegate (decision-maker) at the Department of Home Affairs could quickly identify that our client and her employer satisfied all relevant regulatory criteria, thereby reducing any processing delays which may have been caused by further requests for more information.
2) Our client completed her health and character checks in a prompt manner.
Upon the lodgement of our client’s Subclass 186 visa application, she received a request from the Department of Home Affairs to undertake health examinations within twenty-eight (28) days, which she duly attended to.
Our client also provided her police clearances to the Department in a timely manner, thereby obviating the Department’s need to issue her a further request for police certificates from all countries in which she had spent 12 months or more over the last 10 years.
3) We assisted our client’s employer with keeping the Department updated about the business’s financial position at all relevant junctures.
Nomination applications are generally processed months after they have been lodged with the Department, during which many businesses may not have provided any updated financial documentation to reflect their ongoing financial position during the processing of the nomination application. A few years ago, the Department actually began refusing some of these nomination applications without providing these businesses with an opportunity to send through updated financial documents, resulting in many employers having to apply for merits review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (as the Administrative Review Tribunal was then known) to essentially appeal the refusal of their nomination application.
Nowadays, the Department will generally send a request for more information where they require updated financial documents from a business to assess their nomination application. Nonetheless, as a matter of prudence, we always encourage and assist our clients with being proactive in providing these updates, so as to demonstrate:
that the employer is lawfully and actively operating in Australia at all relevant junctures; and
that the employer has ongoing financial capacity to support the nominated position.
This helps avoid any processing delays which may otherwise be caused by requests for more information, and also enables us to better monitor the employer’s circumstances to manage their ongoing satisfaction of the nomination requirements, as well as assist with updating the Department about any changes where required.
4) Our client’s nominated occupation ranks higher on the Department’s skilled visa processing priority list.
Our client’s nominated occupation of ANZSCO 251513 Retail Pharmacist falls under the ANZSCO Sub-major Group 25 – Health Professionals, which is 2nd on the Department’s skilled visa processing priority list. In this regard, skilled visa applications (including Subclass 186 visa applications) are generally processed in the following order of priority:
For employer sponsored visas, visa applications in relation to an occupation to be carried out in a designated regional area.
Visa applications in relation to a healthcare or teaching occupation.
For employer sponsored visas, visa applications where the applicant is nominated by an Approved sponsor with Accredited Status.
For permanent and provisional visa subclasses, visa applications that count towards the migration program, excluding the Subclass 188 (Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional)) visa.
All other visa applications (assessed in order of the date of lodgement).
Nonetheless, while shorter processing times and ranking higher on the order of priority processing are often welcomed, this can be both a blessing and a challenge. This is because the faster a visa application is processed, the lesser opportunity there is to correct gaps or weaknesses in the application prior to a decision being made by the Department of Home Affairs, especially where our immigration lawyers are being appointed after an application has already been lodged.
This is why we always endeavour to assist our clients with lodging a decision-ready application (i.e. an application that is complete and well-documented at the time of lodgement), because any missing information, inconsistencies and/or unsubstantiated claims which are not rectified in time, could potentially lead to a refusal of the visa application.
Want to know more?
Our immigration lawyers at Inclusive Migration have extensive experience in advising prospective migrants to Australia about their employer-sponsored, skilled migration and family migration options in Australia. Should you wish to discuss your migration options in Australia, please do not hesitate to email info@inclusivemigration.com.au, submit an enquiry using the contact form on our website or send us a message on WhatsApp.
