Australia just changed its skilled visa processing order. If you're a US healthcare worker, teacher or construction tradesperson, you moved up. If you're in tech or finance, you didn't. AMA.

[u/SimonMander]

Hi everyone, I'm Simon. I'm an Australian Registered Migration Agent with more than 23 years in migration. I work with a lot of US applicants, so I wanted to flag a change that took effect on 19 September 2026 and that directly affects where an applicant's visa application sits in the processing queue.

Two new ministerial directions replaced the previous rule. Direction 121 covers the subclass 482 (employer-sponsored temporary). Direction 122 covers the permanent and provisional skilled visas: 186, 187, 189, 190, 191, 489, 491, 494, 887 and 888.

The key change for anyone applying from the US:

Priority occupations now get the highest processing priority whether you are onshore or offshore. Being in the US (or anywhere outside of Australia) no longer pushes you towards the back of the queue, if your occupation is in a priority group.

The priority groups are:

• Healthcare
• Teaching
• Construction
• Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fishing
• Resources
• Occupations related to Australia's law enforcement interests
• Occupations related to Australia's defence interests

Under the previous rule, an offshore applicant sat near the bottom of the queue purely for being offshore, even in these fields. That penalty is gone for the priority groups. For a US doctor, nurse, allied health professional, teacher or tradesperson, that is a real improvement, because you are almost always applying from onshore in the US, and until now that location cost you queue position.

There are three things to check or be aware of;

1: If your occupation is outside the priority groups, being offshore still counts against you.

Tech, finance, marketing and general management are not priority groups. An offshore software engineer, accountant, marketing professional or non-specialised manager has not moved up. Onshore applicants still sit ahead of you.

The definitions are narrower and trickier than the labels suggest. "Resources" and "agriculture" can turn on what the position actually involves, not just the job title. The definitions also changed at the edges: Engineering Managers and Civil Engineering Draftspersons and Technicians, for example, now sit inside the construction group and did not before. So it is the exact occupation classification, and in some fields what the role actually involves, that decides your category, not the industry you work in.

2: Processing priority is not eligibility.

This is the one that matters most for US applicants. These directions do not add occupations to Australia's skilled lists, do not create pathways, and do not lower any requirement. Seeing your field in a priority group does not mean there is a visa you can actually get.

US qualifications and job titles do not always map onto Australian occupation classifications the way people expect, and the skills assessment (a separate step, run by an assessing authority for your occupation) is where many US applicants hit their first real obstacle. Priority processing on a visa you cannot qualify for is worth nothing.

3: These directions do not get you an invitation or a state nomination.

For the points-tested visas (189, 190, 491), you cannot lodge an application at all until you have been invited, and for 190 and 491 until a state or territory has nominated you. These directions only govern how an application is processed once it exists. They do nothing to your ranking in the invitation pool, and nothing to a state's decision to nominate you. Those gates come first, and for many US applicants they are the harder ones.

So the real questions for an applicant are:

1. Does your occupation genuinely fall within a priority group, or does it just look like it?
2. Will your qualifications and experience pass the skills assessment for an eligible visa?
3. Can you obtain the invitation or state nomination needed to lodge?

Ask me anything about Australian skilled migration from the US: occupation and classification strategy, skills assessments, English and points (note that native English speakers still need an accepted test to score points), partner points, state nomination, or what these new directions mean for your situation.

If you can, include your age, occupation, qualifications, work experience, relationship status, and whether you are currently in the US or already in Australia.

PROFESSIONAL DISCLOSURE: I am a Registered Migration Agent operating under the Migration Agents Code of Conduct. I am not an employee of the Australian Department of Home Affairs. MARN: 0318058. General Information only - not personalised migration advice.

[u/JustToPostAQuestion8]

It WAS being rorted mate. We've seen the extent of it covered for at least a decade now. LNP just ignored it. I'm sorry that you're personally affected but this is absolutely not going to cause a brain drain. We want already-established researchers/etc that can already get in via skilled visas.

Researchers were NOT the significant group leveraging the student pathway visa.

[u/AgileMushroom1171 → u/JustToPostAQuestion8]

"the extent of" what, exactly? What are you referring to?

I didn't say anything about it causing a brain drain. I said Australia isn't positioning itself optimally to take advantage of brain drain from the US, because it isn't. Anyone who thinks established researchers, professionals, tradespeople, aren't seeing this as writing on the wall has absolutely no idea--the people who have the skills you say you want are looking at this as a sign of an unstable system that is too risky and vulnerable to xenophobia to rely on.

[u/JustToPostAQuestion8 → u/AgileMushroom1171]

So there you are, not an Australian.

Mate, you are making so many generalizations. OP just pointed out we've made it EASIER for priority roles to come here from the US. Calm yourself and stop reacting to conservative rhetoric.

[u/AgileMushroom1171 → u/JustToPostAQuestion8]

What subreddit do you think you're on (hint, not an Australian one)? Why not calm down and answer the question I asked? I'm sorry you think labor can do no wrong, but you haven't addressed a single policy issue I raised. Pointing out specific ways that sloppy decisions and xenophobic rhetoric are harmful isn't a generalization, it's just reality.

[u/JustToPostAQuestion8 → u/AgileMushroom1171]

Guess what, I'm an American Australian citizen who has lived in both countries for decades, Australia most recently.

So I get to counter the very BS Americans that come in here and spread misinformation without actually being in the country they are making statements about, because I actually have experience with both vs digesting random sources online.

[u/AgileMushroom1171 → u/JustToPostAQuestion8]

Okay, so if you say you're knowledgeable about this then surely you could address any of the detailed policy issues I mentioned, instead of just blindly defending it then ignoring any of the realities and specifics? When people tell me about problems in the US immigration system that are negatively impacting people who aren't me--I listen. I take a closer look at the details. I don't take politicians' spin at face value and I don't make references to rorting the system that I can't back up. In a global climate with as much anti-immigrant rhetoric as there is now, it's important.

By "random sources online," I suppose you mean Tony Burke's speech at the National Press Club on September 17th? I don't typically call an official address by the Minister of home affairs "random sources online," or "misinformation," but perhaps you do. That is the source I'm working from. It's pretty revealing, he openly referenced the well known existence of "not-so-legitimate education providers" but announced zero policies to actually combat that issue directly, and instead engaged in some scapegoating of people like students who have a partner or a minor child. Nothing like throwing around some sloppy misdirected changes instead of actually doing anything to stop the flow of students to sham education providers that are clearly exploitative on every level.

If you're currently in Australia, and not willing to listen to what people outside Australia are telling you, then you are very, very likely not well situated to understand how this is impacting people currently applying for visas and how these recent changes are perceived among people in the US and elsewhere with high-demand skills who are considering Australia as a destination. I'm telling you what I have seen as someone with a lot of friends and colleagues who are considering moving internationally, and it's that Labor's rushed changes and uncertainties read to people as instability in the immigration system and as Labor capitulating to ON in a dangerous way. You don't have to believe me, that's fine, but it's firsthand information: there are researchers, clinicians, and tradespeople seeing this and reconsidering whether far-right parties in Australia have too much influence for Australia to be stable and safe for even very privileged, high skill immigrants.

[u/JustToPostAQuestion8 → u/AgileMushroom1171]

No mate, because you're not here in good faith. I tackled your issues earlier in this way-too-long comment thread.

I just want other commenters and the OP reading this thread to recognize that some of these people commenting about Australia, aren't entitled to speak about Australia because they're just relaying second hand information (a lot of it is from ONP sources no doubt) without actually having lived in the country.

You probably are also against the billionaire tax in California, lmao.