Quick answer: Under Directions 121 and 122, for applications within the listed Tier 1 priority sectors, occupation category rather than applicant location determines the highest priority tier. For applications outside those sectors, location remains relevant to processing order. This piece sets out what that means practically for employers and applicants.
Last reviewed: 19 September 2026
We wrote an analysis of the onshore advantage under Direction 119. That analysis is now largely superseded, and not because it was wrong - because the framework itself changed. Direction 121 and Direction 122 don't just reshuffle the tiers, they remove the reason most people cared about location in the first place. This is what we're telling employers and applicants now, under the actual rules that took effect on 19 September 2026.
The headline shift
Under Direction 119, the very top tier demanded two things at once - the right occupation and being onshore. Miss either one and you dropped, sometimes badly. Under both new Directions, the top tier only asks one question: does the occupation fall into one of the seven priority sectors. Location doesn't come into it at all until you're already outside that group.
| Case type | Under Direction 119 | Under Directions 121/122 |
|---|---|---|
| Priority-sector occupation (construction, healthcare, teaching, agriculture, aquaculture, fishing, resources, law enforcement, Defence) | Top tier required being onshore too - offshore dropped you a full tier | For Tier 1 classification, onshore status does not itself elevate the processing-priority category - it may still be relevant to other aspects of the individual's migration position |
| Any other occupation | Onshore beat offshore, but both still ranked below the priority sectors either way | The Directions continue to distinguish relevant onshore and offshore circumstances for applications outside the Tier 1 priority sectors |
| Net effect | The onshore-advantage question mattered for almost every case | The onshore-advantage question now only matters for the minority outside the seven sectors |
For most employers and applicants in construction, healthcare, teaching, agriculture, aquaculture, fishing, resources, law enforcement or Defence, this is good news, and it simplifies a decision that used to carry real weight. If the occupation qualifies, applicant location does not determine the priority category - though location may still be relevant to visa validity, grant requirements, travel, bridging status and other individual considerations.
What we're telling employers
- Re-check your current nomination and application pipeline against the new seven-sector list, not the old three-sector one. Some roles that missed out on priority under Direction 119 - particularly in agriculture, aquaculture, fishing and resources, which didn't exist as categories at all before - may now qualify. That doesn't itself determine eligibility for a visa or nomination - the applicable requirements still need to be checked.
- If you're sponsoring into construction, also check the two occupations added to that category specifically: Engineering Managers and Civil Engineering Draftspersons and Technicians weren't part of the old Direction 119 list.
- If you're sponsoring a Defence-related role, the test is now broader than direct ADF or Defence nomination - a letter of support may be relevant where the person will work at a defence facility or the role supports defence-related materiel or technology - the exact wording and evidentiary requirements should be checked. Worth revisiting roles that didn't qualify under the old, narrower test.
- Stop treating onshore lodgement as the default lever for every case. For a priority-sector role, onshore status does not itself improve the priority category - a decision to travel to or remain in Australia should not be made solely by reference to processing priority, and requires consideration of the person's visa position and circumstances.
- For a 482 nomination in a high-value specialist role, check whether it could fit the Specialist Skills stream. It's a dedicated tier 2 slot under Direction 121, above every ordinary occupation-based case - see below for what actually qualifies.
What we're telling applicants
- Check your occupation against the current definitions before assuming your old assessment still holds. Direction 121 and 122 use identical, broadened occupation categories - a role that didn't qualify for priority under Direction 119 may qualify now.
- If your occupation is in one of the seven priority sectors, there's no need to rush a trip to Australia, or delay one, purely to affect your tier. That calculation simply isn't part of the framework any more for your case.
- If your occupation sits outside the seven sectors, location still matters exactly as it did before - onshore still beats offshore. People subject to a ‘no further stay’ condition should obtain individual advice before taking steps toward a further visa application.
- If you're applying for a capped permanent or provisional visa - the 190, 489, 491 or 494 - remember that for a visa class subject to a statutory cap or other program constraint, processing priority does not itself create a place in the program or guarantee a grant.
The Specialist Skills stream - what actually qualifies
Direction 121 gives the Specialist Skills stream of the Skills in Demand visa its own dedicated tier, sitting above every other occupation-based case that isn't in a priority sector. For the purpose of that priority category, the relevant occupational classification is framed by ANZSCO Major Groups 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, rather than a fixed occupation list. This does not itself establish eligibility for the Specialist Skills stream - the nomination and visa must still meet all applicable requirements, including the genuine-position requirement, the applicable income threshold (currently $146,576 for the 2026-27 program year), visa criteria and any Labour Market Testing requirement or exemption. A higher processing category may improve relative queue position, but it does not guarantee a particular processing timeframe or grant outcome. For a role with a high salary, this stream is worth checking well before assuming a client needs to fit a priority sector at all.
The new exception clauses - an untested tool
Directions 121 and 122 contain express provisions permitting departure from the ordinary processing order in specified circumstances. Earlier instruments, including Direction 119, did not contain an equivalent mechanism framed in the same way. Direction 121 recognises three grounds - community safety, the continuity of essential religious, cultural or community services, and Australia's international relations. Direction 122 recognises only the first two; international relations isn't a listed ground there.
As these provisions are new, published guidance and reported practical experience may be limited. Their operation will depend on the Direction's wording and the evidence in the individual case. Our advice for now is not to treat it as a routine option, but it's worth raising directly with us if a matter's circumstances actually engage one of the listed grounds - these are new express provisions, and published guidance and practical experience may still be limited.
What hasn't changed
- Eligibility criteria are untouched by any of this. A higher tier has never meant, and still doesn't mean, an easier path to approval - it only affects when a case is looked at.
- Neither Direction addresses nomination applications - only the visa application stage. This differs from Direction 119, which also contained a nomination schedule for certain employer-sponsored matters.
- For cases outside the Tier 1 priority sectors, location continues to carry the same processing-order considerations that we set out in our Direction 119 analysis. Individual visa conditions and application constraints remain relevant and should be considered separately - that background remains relevant; only the population it applies to has shrunk.
Frequently asked questions
Does onshore lodgement still matter at all under the new Directions?
For the processing-tier question, location is relevant principally to covered applications outside the Tier 1 priority sectors - for a priority-sector case, location does not determine tier. Location may still matter for other visa and application issues.
Is the Specialist Skills stream worth pursuing?
Often, yes, for the right case. It's a real tier-2 priority slot under Direction 121, and the occupation only needs to sit in a broad ANZSCO major group rather than a fixed list. Labour Market Testing is generally required for the nomination, subject to applicable exemptions - the two things to confirm case by case are whether the offered salary clears the Specialist Skills Income Threshold, currently $146,576 for the 2026-27 program year, and whether an applicable exemption, including any relevant international-trade-obligation exemption, removes the LMT requirement for this particular nominee.
Can a delegate be asked to prioritise a case outside the normal order?
Yes, under the new compelling-circumstances exceptions in both Directions - but this is a new, untested mechanism, and the threshold for a delegate to actually apply it isn't yet clear from practice.
Does a top tier under Direction 122 guarantee a visa if the subclass is capped?
No. Tier position decides processing order within the cap, not whether a place remains available. A capped subclass can still fill before a high-tier application is reached.
For the full tier breakdown, see our Direction 121 and Direction 122 guides.
Sources
- Ministerial Direction 121, Department of Home Affairs (official PDF)
- Ministerial Direction 122, Department of Home Affairs (official PDF)
- Skilled visa processing priorities, Department of Home Affairs
- Specialist Skills stream, Skills in Demand visa (subclass 482), Department of Home Affairs
- Salary requirements to nominate a worker, Department of Home Affairs
- Labour Market Testing (LMT) requirement, Skills in Demand visa (subclass 482) - Migration Act 1958, section 140GBA
About the author
Ruobing Yang, Legal Practitioner Director
Legal Practitioner Number (LPN): 5511418
Profile: alclawyers.com.au/person/ruobing-yang
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/ruobingyang209
This article sets out our own analysis and strategic view based on Ministerial Directions 121 and 122 as at the date of publication. Ministerial Directions can be amended or replaced, and this article is general information, not legal advice for your specific circumstances. Contact us directly before acting on any of the strategies discussed here.