Increase in Subclass 400 refusals for Indian nationals

5 November 2025

We have seen a recent dramatic increase in refusals for subclass 400 visas lodged by Indian nationals. We have reached out to our national association to garner their feedback and they noted that they are aware of the refusal spike and are currently undertaking an FOI (Freedom of Information) request.
An FOI can take at least 30 days to be actioned.  We are not waiting for the FOI information and so in the interest of time to enable you to better plan your workforce, I have gathered information below that we hope helps you understand what is going on.

Misuse of the visa ?
While specific refusal rates for the subclass 400 visa from India are not available, there is increased scrutiny, which makes refusal more likely due to a crackdown on misuse of the visa.  What does ‘misuse of the visa’ mean ?.   This term is ‘Department speak’ for people applying for the 400 visa with the intention of bypassing requirements for other temporary work visas, like the subclass 482 visa.  Why ?.  Because the 482 visas are taking so damn long to process and business really can’t wait for 4,6 or 9 months for a 482 visa…………  Go figure.

Reason for refusal
Below, I have copied and pasted a reason for refusal which I believe is copied and pasted from other refusals and so it goes. 
After a cup of tea (in an effort to calm you down or shake your head), please read the below reasons for refusal in the context that the applicant had a full-time position in India, provided a letter from the Australian business, the Indian employer and note that they are associated entities. A payslip was provided and length of stay requested was 2 weeks.  This is not a unique reason for refusal, it’s a copy and paste from every other refusal we are seeing.  I have highlighted the ‘are you for real’ sentences !. 
 
400.214
The applicant has:
(a) adequate means to support himself or herself; or
(b) access to adequate means to support himself or herself;
(c) during the period of the applicant’s intended stay in Australia.
 
In considering the application, I have had regard to the relevant criteria in subclauses
400.213(a) and (b) in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations. Noting that the applicant no
history of travel to Australia, I give this factor little weight in my decision. I also consider the
applicant’s circumstances and their declared intention to comply with relevant visa conditions and give some weight in the applicant’s favour when assessing these criteria.
 
Under policy when considering 400.213(c) “any other relevant matter”, decision makers
may take into account a wide range of considerations to determine whether an applicant
genuinely intends a temporary stay in Australia. This may include, but is not limited to, the
applicant’s employment, economic and family circumstances, their credibility, the claimed
purpose and period of stay, and the applicant’s previous travel history.
 
I have taken into account the information provided by the applicant in their visa application form and the supporting documents. I find that the information provided is not sufficient to satisfy me of their genuine temporary stay intention, and the applicant has not demonstrated that they have sufficiently strong commitments that would be an incentive for them to return to their usual country of residence.
 
More specifically, while the applicant claims to be employed, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence with their application that supports their employment claims. Hence, I am not satisfied as to their ongoing business and overall economic circumstances in their home country. As such, I do not consider that the applicant has strong business or economic incentives to return to their usual country of residence at the end of their proposed stay in Australia.
 
I have considered the support provided by ______. While letters of support and guarantees offered by business associates, or organisations in Australia are important in assisting the decision-maker to consider the merits of each case, they are not in themselves sufficient evidence of a genuine visit. The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate their own circumstances and incentives to depart Australia at the end of their trip.
 
Further due to your economic circumstances and I note that the applicant has provided some evidence of their financial standing, however the amounts cannot be considered significant in the context of overall economic conditions and cost of living in their home country.
 
What does this mean for HR ?
 
Due to the high refusal rates, we are seeing clients select only married applicants to apply for a visa subclass 400.  Drastic measure isn’t it.
 
In an effort to think outside the square, we included a submission in one application to show that the applicant was being paid Australian market rate and that was refused as well.  We decided to relodge the application specifically addressing the reasons for refusal and it was granted. Really – is it coming to this ? 
 
This newsletter is to reassure you that if you have received a refusal for an Indian national applying for a visa subclass 400 that you are not alone.  I am not sure why Immigration Case Officers are now all considered to be economists as well as immigration case officers and now have the audacity to make decisions on not only what roles the Australian company needs but also a person’s financial circumstances in their home country and , on top of that, making the damn rude and unforgivable reason that they (Immigration case officers) believe that the applicant is not being paid enough money in their home country.
 
Just remember Luka Modric’s quote – “The most important thing is to never give up, never give in to circumstances, believe yourself, and to soldier on, no matter what’s in your way “.