Tas 190 Nomination Reconsideration Approved
Case Summary
Background:
Mr. M, an IT professional working in Tasmania, applied for nomination under the Tasmanian Subclass 190 program. In September 2024, his application for state nomination was refused. The primary reason for refusal centred on significant inconsistencies in his payroll documentation, which cast doubt on the genuineness of his employment and prevented the assessing officer from being satisfied of his eligibility.
Taking Over the Case:
Upon accepting the case, we immediately conducted a comprehensive analysis of Mr. M’s circumstances. We meticulously collated all employment-related documents from the commencement of his role until the application date. Our audit revealed a problematic employment pattern characterised by unstable working hours and periodic cash payments. Crucially, the initial application, prepared by a previous agent, had submitted a generic set of documents without tailoring them to address the unique complexities of the case. This lack of a coherent narrative and supporting evidence to explain the discrepancies made the employment appear non-genuine.
Recognising the urgency—as Mr. M’s occupation pathway was contingent on state nomination—we swiftly developed a strategic response. We engaged in detailed consultations with Mr. M to reconstruct an accurate record of his employment and remuneration. Our strategy involved:
-
Creating a Detailed Explanatory Narrative: We drafted a thorough statutory declaration for Mr. M, logically explaining the reasons behind the irregular payment patterns (e.g., project-based work, specific arrangements with the employer).
-
Securing Robust Employer Support: We liaised directly with the employer to obtain a compelling letter of support. This letter confirmed Mr. M’s ongoing employment, detailed his roles and responsibilities, and explicitly acknowledged and explained the previous payment irregularities.
-
Compiling Corroborative Evidence: We gathered additional, previously unused evidence to create a holistic and verifiable picture of his employment, such as detailed bank statements, internal company communications, and project records.
This multi-faceted approach presented a coherent, evidence-backed case to the state authorities, directly addressing and mitigating the concerns that led to the initial refusal.
Successful Outcome:
Within two weeks of taking instructions and merely 20 days after the initial refusal, we submitted a powerful request for reconsideration. The submission was so comprehensive and persuasive that the Tasmanian state government approved the nomination without any further requests for information just three business days later. Mr. M subsequently received his formal invitation for the Subclass 190 visa.
This case underscores that a well-prepared reconsideration request can successfully reverse a negative outcome. It highlights the critical importance of deep evidence analysis, strategic communication with employers, and constructing a logical narrative that directly addresses the decision-maker’s concerns.
Nomination Grant Notice
Case Study Disclaimer
All case studies shared in this website are based on real client matters handled by HECT Migration & Appeal Experts. To protect the privacy of our clients, all identifying details such as names, locations, occupations and personal circumstances have been altered or omitted. Only core legal and strategic aspects relevant to the visa outcome are presented. These case studies are provided for general information purposes only and should not be interpreted as individual advice. Please do not attempt to identify or compare yourself with any case discussed.
