Over 45 and want employer sponsored PR? The subclass 186 high-income exemption

Most people assume that turning 45 closes the door on employer sponsored permanent residence. For the subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme visa, that is the general rule: the applicant usually needs to be under 45 at the time of application. Far fewer people know that the rule carries exemptions, and that one of them is a high-income exemption. From 1 July 2026 the salary figure it turns on rose to $190,100.

This requirement decides more experienced applicants than almost any other in the employer sponsored pathway. A person spends years building a career in Australia, often on a subclass 482 visa, meets every requirement their employer sets, and then reaches 45 just as permanent residence comes into view. If that describes your situation, or you can see it coming, read on before ruling out the 186.

Who the age rule applies to

The subclass 186 visa generally requires applicants to be under 45 years of age at the time of application. It is an age at time of application rule rather than an age at decision rule, and the distinction matters: what counts is the applicant’s age on the day a valid application is lodged, not their age when it is decided months later. The requirement applies regardless of skill level, salary, or how strongly the employer supports the applicant. It is a threshold criterion rather than a discretionary judgment about suitability, so unless an exemption applies, missing it ends the application.

For many experienced people, that is the problem. The years it takes to become valuable to an Australian employer are the same years that push a person towards the age cap. The rule sits awkwardly with the reality of a senior career, and that tension is why the exemptions exist.

The categories of exemption

The under-45 requirement is not absolute. The regulations set out a set of exemptions, and they fall into recognisable groups. In broad terms they cover certain academics nominated by an Australian university, regional medical practitioner applicants (a medical practitioner nominated for a position in a designated regional area who has also practised in a designated regional area for at least 2 of the previous 3 years), applicants nominated under a labour agreement that expressly provides for an older worker, and high-income earners in the Temporary Residence Transition stream who have been paid at or above the Fair Work High Income Threshold. Each exemption is narrow and has its own conditions, and none of them is a general waiver available on the basis of hardship or merit.

The structural point is that being over 45 does not end the matter. It moves the inquiry to a different question: whether the applicant fits within one of the defined exemption categories. For applicants who have been working and paid well for their nominating employer, the high-income exemption is usually the one that matters.

How the high-income exemption works in principle

In the Temporary Residence Transition stream of the 186, the exemption is for a “Subclass 457/482 worker” as defined in the Migration (LIN 19/216: Exemptions from Skill, Age and English Language Requirements for Subclass 186, 187 and 494 Visas) Instrument 2019. Three things must be true. During the 3 years ending immediately before the visa application was made, the applicant was employed for a total of at least 2 years in one or more positions related to a nomination approved under section 140GB of the Migration Act 1958. For each of those 2 years, the applicant’s earnings for the year were equal to or greater than the Fair Work high income threshold as applying at the end of that year. And during those same 3 years the applicant held a subclass 457 or 482 visa (or, in defined circumstances, a bridging visa granted on the basis of an application for one of those visas or for a subclass 186 or 187 visa) for a total of at least 2 years.

The mechanics do the work here. The exemption does not ask whether the job is prestigious or whether the employer values the applicant. It asks a factual question about money paid over time: across the years that count, was the applicant paid at or above the threshold in each of them? The test is deliberately objective. It substitutes a hard earnings test for the age bar, on the logic that a person paid at that level is contributing at a level the age rule was never meant to exclude.

The threshold itself is set by the Fair Work Commission, and it moves every year. As at 1 July 2026 it is $190,100, per the Fair Work Commission high income threshold. Because it steps up each 1 July, the figure to be cleared depends on which years count for the application, not just the current one. An applicant whose relevant period spans several financial years is measured against a different number in each of those years. Confirm the exact period that applies, and the figure for each of those years, against the Department of Home Affairs Temporary Residence Transition stream page.

The detail that decides these cases

Actual earnings are what matter, and they generally have to clear the threshold for each relevant year, not merely on average across the period. This is where applicants who assume they qualify sometimes come unstuck. A strong year does not carry a weak one. A single year in which earnings fell below the threshold, perhaps because of unpaid leave, a mid-year start, a period of reduced hours, or a restructure, can be the difference between qualifying and not, even if the total across the period looks comfortable.

How remuneration is structured, and how it is evidenced, determines whether the exemption holds up. Base salary, guaranteed amounts, and the treatment of bonuses, allowances and non-monetary benefits cannot be left to chance when the whole exemption rests on them. What counts towards the threshold is a legal question, and the answer is not always the number at the bottom of a payslip. Discretionary bonuses, reimbursements and superannuation, for example, cannot be assumed to count in the same way as guaranteed salary. This is worth getting right on paper well before lodgement, rather than reconstructing it afterwards from records that were never assembled with this test in mind.

Common misconceptions

A few beliefs cause more trouble than others. The first is that a high salary now is enough. The test looks at each relevant past year, so a recent pay rise does nothing for a year that fell short. The second is that clearing the threshold is the whole case. The exemption removes the age barrier only. The applicant must still satisfy every other requirement of the Temporary Residence Transition stream, including the employment, nomination, skill and genuineness requirements, and hold a valid nomination from an approved sponsor.

The third misconception is that the exemption is a discretion the Department can be persuaded to exercise. It is a defined criterion. The applicant either meets it on the facts and the figures or does not, and no amount of explanation substitutes for earnings that clear the threshold in each relevant year. The useful work therefore happens before lodgement, well ahead of any request for more information.

Plan it before 45, not after

If permanent residence is the goal and 45 is approaching, treat the exemption as something to plan towards rather than discover too late. Consider the 482 employment, the salary structure and the timing together, with the exemption in mind, while there is still room to shape them. Aligning remuneration and the relevant work period against the threshold well in advance gives the applicant the strongest position for meeting it in every year that counts.

If you are weighing up an employer sponsored pathway and the age rule is on your mind, Visa Plan Lawyers can look at your work history and salary and tell you whether the exemption is available to you. Start with our employer sponsored visa services, or read about the subclass 482 Skills in Demand visa that so often leads into it, then book a consultation and we will work through it with you.

General information only, current at the date shown. It is not legal advice on your situation. To get advice on your matter, book a consultation.