Quick answer: Direction 117 sets processing priorities for Family visa applications. Direction 120 sets processing priorities for National Innovation Visa and specified legacy Class BX applications. Direction 119 formerly applied to certain skilled nominations and visa applications, but was revoked on 19 September 2026 and replaced by Directions 121 and 122. All three use different priority structures.
Last reviewed: 19 September 2026
Update, 19 September 2026: Direction 119 has been revoked and is discussed below for historical comparison only. For current skilled-visa processing priorities, see our guides to Direction 121 and Direction 122.
Ministerial Directions 117, 119 and 120 were all made under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958, but they regulate three very different processing-priority frameworks. Direction 117 applies to Family visa applications. Direction 120 applies to Class BX visa applications, including National Innovation Visa applications and specified pending legacy Global Talent and Distinguished Talent cases. Direction 119 formerly governed certain skilled nominations and visa applications, but it was revoked on 19 September 2026.
Current status: Direction 119 is now historical. Its skilled-visa processing regime has been replaced by Direction 121 for subclass 482 Skills in Demand and residual Temporary Skill Shortage cases, and by Direction 122 for ten specified permanent and provisional skilled visa subclasses. Direction 117 and Direction 120 remain current.
The comparison remains useful because it shows how differently the Department can structure a processing queue. Direction 117 separates applications first by location at lodgement and whether the visa can be granted onshore. Historical Direction 119 combined location with specified law-enforcement, Defence and occupation categories. Direction 120 does not use location as a stated priority factor and also directs how decision-makers assess exceptional and outstanding achievement.
The basics, side by side
| Feature | Direction 117 | Direction 119 — historical | Direction 120 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current status | Current | Revoked 19 September 2026 | Current |
| Main visa cohort | Family visa applications | Certain skilled nomination and visa applications | Class BX: National Innovation Visa and specified legacy Global Talent/Distinguished Talent applications |
| Replaced | Direction 102 | Direction 105; later replaced by Directions 121 and 122 | Direction 112 |
| Processing design | Two primary-applicant categories, then the same six-level Visa Processing Order within each category | Separate five-tier nomination and visa orders combining location with defined categories | Five-tier structure based on achievement and nomination pathway |
| Does applicant location matter? | Yes. Higher category requires the primary applicant to have been in Australia at lodgement and to be able to receive the visa in Australia | Yes. Location was important, but qualifying law-enforcement and Defence matters could rank above general onshore cases | No. Location is not part of the stated priority order |
| Highest-priority concept | ART ministerial-intervention/substitution cohort, then partner/dependent-child-related applications within the higher/lower location category | Qualifying law-enforcement and Defence nominations/visa applications | Specified exceptional-and-outstanding-achievement and nomination pathways |
| ART treatment | ART-remitted matters included; Direction does not apply to ART itself | ART-related matters and the ART itself excluded under the Direction's terms | Queue-order provisions exclude the ART; achievement-assessment guidance applies to ART members |
| Exception from standard order | Yes: special compassionate circumstances plus compelling reasons | No equivalent general compassionate exception | No equivalent general compassionate exception |
| Effect on eligibility criteria | Processing order only | Processing order only | Processing order plus binding evaluative guidance for an existing criterion |
How location affects each Direction
Direction 117: Location matters first, but “onshore” is not enough by itself. The higher category applies only where the primary applicant was in Australia when the application was made and the visa can be granted while the applicant is in Australia. Applications in that category have priority over applications where the primary applicant was offshore at lodgement or must be offshore at grant. The same six-level Visa Processing Order is then applied within each category.
Historical Direction 119: Location was important but did not operate in the same way. Qualifying law-enforcement and Defence applications could rank above general onshore cases even if lodged offshore. By contrast, the enhanced healthcare, teaching and construction categories depended on the relevant nominee or primary applicant being onshore when the relevant nomination or visa application was made.
Direction 120: Location is not a stated priority criterion. Its order turns on achievement and nomination pathways, rather than whether the applicant is onshore or offshore.
Does being in Australia improve visa processing priority? It depends on the Direction. It is central to Direction 117, was important but not decisive under historical Direction 119, and is not a stated priority factor under Direction 120. Being onshore does not guarantee a faster decision or visa grant.
Direction 117: Family visa processing priorities
Direction 117 applies to listed Family visa classes and commenced on 25 July 2026, replacing Direction 102. It applies to pending applications that were made but not finally determined before commencement, as well as relevant new applications. It expressly includes Family visa matters remitted from the ART or a predecessor tribunal, but the Direction does not apply to the ART itself. It also does not apply where it is readily apparent that visa-grant criteria would not be satisfied.
The Direction first divides primary-applicant applications into two categories:
- Higher category: the primary applicant was in Australia when the application was made and the visa can be granted while the applicant is in Australia.
- Lower category: the primary applicant was outside Australia at lodgement, or must be outside Australia at the time of visa grant.
Within both categories, the Direction applies the same six-level Visa Processing Order - set out in Direction 117 sections 8(2) and 8(3). That order prioritises ministerial-intervention/substitution cases, then partner, prospective spouse and dependent-child cases, followed by orphan-relative, contributory-parent, carer, and other parent/relative categories. Under section 8(4), a secondary-criteria applicant receives the same priority as the primary applicant whether or not the application is combined, where the Regulations permit the separate application. Section 9 sets out the compassionate exception referenced above.
Does Direction 117 prioritise all onshore family visa applications?
No. The primary applicant must have been in Australia when applying and the visa must be capable of grant while the applicant is in Australia. If either condition is not met, the application falls into the lower primary-applicant category. Relationship and visa type then determine priority within the relevant category.
Direction 119: Historical skilled visa processing priorities
Direction 119 is no longer current. It was revoked on 19 September 2026 and its affected skilled-visa processing framework was replaced by Directions 121 and 122. It remains relevant only when analysing the historical position, prior advice, earlier processing decisions or the development of the current system.
Direction 119 used separate five-tier orders for certain skilled nomination applications and visa applications. It combined location with specified categories. Qualifying law-enforcement and Defence matters ranked above general onshore cases. Healthcare, teaching and construction matters received their elevated position only when the relevant nominee or primary applicant was in Australia at the required time.
The practical point is that Direction 119 did not create a universal “priority occupation beats location” rule. Its effect depended on the particular category and whether the instrument's onshore condition was met.
Is Direction 119 still in force?
No. Direction 119 was revoked on 19 September 2026. Current skilled-visa processing priorities are addressed by Direction 121 for subclass 482 Skills in Demand and residual TSS cases, and Direction 122 for the specified permanent and provisional skilled visa subclasses.
Direction 120: National Innovation Visa and Class BX priorities
Direction 120 applies to Class BX visa applications, including National Innovation Visa applications and specified pending legacy Global Talent and Distinguished Talent applications. It replaced Direction 112. Its processing order does not use applicant location as a stated priority criterion. Instead, it uses the achievement and nomination pathways identified in the Direction.
Direction 120 is different from Directions 117 and historical 119 because it does more than set queue order. It directs delegates - and, for the relevant assessment provisions, ART members - to have regard to specified guidance when assessing the existing exceptional-and-outstanding-achievement criterion. It does not amend the legal visa criteria, but it directs the evaluative approach used to apply that criterion.
Does being onshore help a National Innovation Visa application under Direction 120?
Direction 120 does not make applicant location a stated processing-priority factor. Priority depends on the achievement and nomination pathways specified in the Direction, not whether the applicant is in or outside Australia.
Where the three pull apart - the finer detail
A couple of the differences above deserve a slower look, and a few more only show up once you compare the instruments clause by clause.
| Feature | Direction 117 | Direction 119 | Direction 120 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ART-remitted matters | Expressly included in the order | Expressly excluded from the order | Expressly excluded from the order |
| The ART itself | Not bound by the Direction | Not bound by the Direction | Excluded from the queue order, but Direction 120 contains provisions that apply to the assessment of exceptional and outstanding achievement in the ART context it specifies |
| Compassionate departure from the order | Section 9 - a delegate can depart from the order for compelling compassionate circumstances | No equivalent provision | No equivalent provision |
| International legal obligations | Delegates must have regard to them | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Guidance on assessing the visa criteria itself | No - queue order only | No - queue order only | Yes - sections 7(2) and 9 guide how “exceptional and outstanding achievement” is assessed |
| Change-of-employer carve-out | Not applicable | Nomination applications for a change of employer are excluded from the Direction entirely | Not applicable |
| Section 85 annual cap | Handled by a separate, dedicated Direction 103 | Handled within the Direction's own section 9 | Not addressed in the Direction (relevant mainly to practitioner-level analysis - check the current determination for any specific matter) |
| Non-combined secondary or family-unit applications | Still given the primary applicant's priority, combined or not | Excluded from the Direction entirely if not combined | Excluded from the Direction entirely if not combined |
| Closed, legacy programs swept in | No | No | Yes - Global Talent and Distinguished Talent, both closed to new applications |
Direction 120's split treatment of the ART is easy to miss - the Administrative Review Tribunal is excluded from the queue-order provisions in the same way it is under historical Direction 119, but ART members are expressly brought back in for the separate job of assessing the exceptional and outstanding achievement criterion. So the ART doesn't follow Direction 120's queue, but it does follow Direction 120's guidance on what “exceptional” actually looks like.
The non-combined application point cuts in opposite directions, and it's easy to miss for that reason. Under Direction 117, a family member who applies separately from the primary applicant still gets the primary applicant's priority. Under historical Direction 119 and Direction 120, an application from someone claiming to be a family unit member who didn't combine their application is treated as excluded from the priority framework rather than merely deprioritised - though the precise exclusion wording should be checked against each Direction's own text before relying on it in a specific case.
What all three Directions have in common
Directions 117, 119 and 120 were made under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958. They direct the performance of relevant functions by Departmental delegates and generally apply to covered pending and new applications, subject to their specific exclusions and transitional provisions.
None creates a visa entitlement, guarantees a decision within a particular timeframe or removes substantive visa requirements. Direction 120 is distinctive because it also directs the evaluation of an existing exceptional-and-outstanding-achievement criterion, but it does not amend that criterion itself.
Important: A Ministerial Direction controls the order in which covered matters are considered and disposed of. It is not an occupation list, a visa criterion, a promise of faster processing or a substitute for the Migration Act, Regulations, legislative instruments, policy and the evidence required for the particular application.
What this means for applicants
The correct strategy depends on which Direction applies. For Family visa applications under Direction 117, establish whether the primary applicant was onshore at lodgement and whether the visa is capable of grant onshore before considering the six-level Visa Processing Order. For current skilled visa matters, do not rely on Direction 119: assess Directions 121 and 122 instead. For National Innovation Visa matters, focus on the evidence supporting the relevant achievement and nomination pathway rather than the applicant's location.
In every case, processing priority is only one part of the analysis. It does not decide visa eligibility, cure evidentiary weaknesses or guarantee a grant or timeframe.
Frequently asked questions
Is Direction 119 still in force?
No. It was revoked on 19 September 2026 and replaced by Directions 121 and 122 for the relevant skilled-visa cohorts.
Does being onshore increase Family visa processing priority?
It can. Under Direction 117, the higher category requires the primary applicant to have been in Australia at lodgement and to be able to receive the visa in Australia.
Does Direction 117 apply to ART-remitted Family visa cases?
Yes. Direction 117 expressly includes applications in respect of matters remitted from the ART or a predecessor tribunal, although the Direction does not apply to the ART itself.
Does Direction 120 prioritise applicants who are in Australia?
No. Applicant location is not a stated priority criterion under Direction 120.
Can compassionate circumstances change Family visa processing priority?
Yes, but the test is specific. Under Direction 117 section 9, the applicant must establish special circumstances of a compassionate nature and compelling reasons for departing from the ordinary order.
Do Ministerial Directions guarantee faster visa processing?
No. They establish an order of consideration and disposal for covered applications. They do not guarantee a decision time or visa grant.
Further reading
- Direction 121: the new temporary skilled visa (482) processing order
- Direction 122: the new permanent and provisional skilled visa processing order
- Ministerial Direction 119: The Basics
- Direction 119: Which Occupations and Visas Are Actually Covered
- Direction 119: Traps, and What Employers and Applicants Should Do Now
- The Onshore Advantage Under Direction 119: A Risk Analysis (Historical)
- Direction 117 Explained: Family Visa Processing Priorities
- Direction 120 Explained: How the National Innovation Visa Queue Actually Works
Primary sources
- Ministerial Direction 117, Department of Home Affairs (official PDF)
- Ministerial Direction 119, Department of Home Affairs (official PDF)
- Ministerial Direction 120, Department of Home Affairs (official PDF)
- 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
- Migration Act 1958, sections 47, 51, 91 and 499
About the author
Cathal Lynch, Legal Practitioner Director
Legal Practitioner Number (LPN): 5513793
Profile: alclawyers.com.au/person/cathal-lynch
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/cathallynch
This article reflects our understanding of Ministerial Directions 117, 119 and 120 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 for advice on your matter.