This round includes both Subclass 190 and Subclass 491 refusals — and it has become even more efficient: they are issued in batches, all with the same stated reason:

the occupation does not fall under STEMM skills, or the role is outside a target sector — and applicants have been directly told to try again next financial year.

Based on our internal data, those who received refusals in this round are as follows:

‍190:

Speech Pathologist – 252712  95 points

Chemical Engineer – 233111  90 points

Registered Nurse (Surgical) – 254424 80 points

ICT Business Analyst – 261111  100 points

‍491:

Accountant (General) – 221111  90 points

Accountant (General) – 221111  100 points

Yesterday, 15 March, Victoria issued a new round of ROI invitations — the second round for March — and we have gathered details of those who received invitations as follows:

Secondary school teacher (teaching Mathematics and Science) — 85+5 points

Resident medical officer (working at a hospital in a regional area) — 85+5 points,

Digital (energy sector) — 90+5 points

Actuary — 90+5 points

Invitations and refusals are going out simultaneously, while nomination processing continues, which suggests the Victorian government is not about to exhaust its nomination quota entirely, but it is not particularly abundant either, so they are filtering out a portion of applicants broadly before selecting more carefully from those that remain.

The most fundamental basis for state nomination quotas is the overall PR quota for each financial year — specifically, the quota allocated to the state-nominated category.

As a rough guide, the more PR places allocated to the state-nominated category in a given financial year, the greater the opportunity for each state to receive a larger nomination quota. However, it is not a direct one-to-one relationship, nor is it distributed equally.For example, the state-nominated PR quota for 2021–22 is the same as in the previous financial year, yet several states have seen their nomination quotas increase somewhat this year.

This brings us to another key factor:State Government Intent + State Population and Scale

The general process for arranging state nomination quotas is as follows:

The state government submits a request (covering mainly the total number and the Subclass 491/190 split) → the Department of Home Affairs approves it before or at the start of the financial year (at this stage, the Department takes an overall view, balancing the total state-nominated PR quota against each state’s needs, etc.) → during the financial year, the state government issues nominations→ as the end of the financial year approaches, the state government may find the quota insufficient and can request more from the Department→ and the Department then approves or declines the request.

It is therefore a collaborative, back-and-forth process.

The state government’s intent is a subjective factor, for instance, in our communications with certain state governments, some have indicated they are hoping for a larger quota next financial year — subject to federal approval. Generally speaking, states that actively seek more quota tend to achieve at least the same allocation as the previous year, if not more — even if the federal government does not necessarily meet the full amount requested. Alternatively, some states may want a greater proportion of Subclass 190 or Subclass 491 places — for example, compared to last financial year, Victoria has focused mainly on Subclass 190 this year, while Canberra has increased the proportion of Subclass 491.

Larger states that are less vocal in their advocacy will not necessarily receive very few places either — it is evident that quota allocations broadly align with each state’s actual application demand.

At the moment, subjective factors — state intent — appear to carry more weight; Tasmania and Canberra are good examples of this (even though both have still found their quotas somewhat tight this financial year).Ultimately, the state government’s attitude depends on the state’s own development trajectory and government planning, and some larger states may not request a very large skilled-migration state nomination quota, but may instead apply for a significant business and investor migration quota.

As the end of each financial year approaches, it is common for state governments to find themselves wanting to issue invitations but unable to, or wanting additional quota that the federal government has not yet — or will not — approve. At this point, even a willing state government cannot act, but the impact does not stay confined to the current financial year.

In the past, states have responded to running out of quota by mass-rejecting applications and telling people to try again next financial year. In recent years, as state nomination has grown in importance, the process has become more considerate — many states have adopted a two-step approach (Expression of Interest followed by a formal nomination), and the more common scenario now is receiving a pre-invitation, the applicant lodges complete documentation, but due to quota constraints no formal nomination can be issued — the state government continues to process the application but simply waits until additional nomination quota becomes available, which may mean waiting until the new financial year, which means a portion of the new financial year’s nomination quota will be taken up from the outset — or a backlog of waiting applicants will have accumulated in the pool at the start of the year. How this plays out depends largely on the state government’s approach.

‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍