Section 48 and Schedule 3 Together: What You Can Still Lodge Onshore

Two barriers land on the same person more often than any others in onshore migration: section 48, which limits what you may apply for after a refusal or cancellation, and Schedule 3, which adds criteria because you no longer hold a substantive visa. People treat them as one problem. They are not, and the order in which they are answered decides what is actually possible.

Verified against the Migration Act 1958 (Compilation No. 171, in force 4 June 2026) and the Migration Regulations 1994, Compilation No. 288 (F2026C00667, in force 1 July 2026).

What section 48 actually says

Section 48(1) applies to a non-citizen in the migration zone who does not hold a substantive visa and who, after last entering Australia, either:

• was refused a visa — expressly excluding a refusal of a bridging visa, and excluding refusals under sections 501, 501A or 501B — whether or not that application has been finally determined; or
• held a visa that was cancelled under section 109, 116, 133A, 133C, 134, 137J or 137Q.

Such a person "may, subject to the regulations, apply for a visa of a class prescribed for the purposes of this section... but not for a visa of any other class."

Three things routinely missed

A character refusal is not a section 48 bar. Refusals under sections 501, 501A and 501B are expressly carved out of section 48(1)(b)(i). A section 501 refusal creates very serious problems, but a section 48 bar is not one of them.

The bar bites from refusal, not from the end of review. The words are "whether or not the application has been finally determined". Waiting for a Tribunal outcome does not suspend it.

Only those listed cancellation powers count. A cancellation must have been made under one of the sections named. Not every cancellation in the Act is on that list.

The limb that catches people barred as children

Section 48(1A) is under-discussed and occasionally decisive: it extends the bar to a person on whose behalf an application was made and refused — expressly including where the person did not know about or understand the application because they were a minor, or because of mental impairment. Someone barred by an application a parent or agent lodged years ago while they were a child is still barred.

Finally: section 48 applies only in the migration zone. It is a bar on applying while in Australia, and it says nothing about applying from outside.

But leaving and coming back does not clear it. Section 48(3) provides that a person who, while holding a bridging visa, leaves and re-enters the migration zone "is taken to have been continuously in the migration zone despite that travel". Sections 48(1B) and 48(2) do the same where a person has been removed, or an attempted removal was made, under section 198. Since nearly everyone in this position is on a bridging visa, a trip out and back achieves nothing. The bar is escaped by applying from offshore, not by travelling.

What you can still lodge — the prescribed list

Regulation 2.12 prescribes the classes that may still be applied for. Listed in full, because partial versions circulate widely:

Subclass numbers above are taken from Schedule 1 of the Regulations. Where a dash appears we have not set one out here rather than state one we have not checked at source.

The three skilled classes most lists omit

Most articles stop at partner and protection. The three skilled classes at the end are the ones worth noticing: Class SN is the subclass 190, Class PS is the 491, and Class PE is the 494. A person barred by section 48 is not automatically shut out of state-nominated or regional skilled migration.

Two cautions on that, and they matter. Being permitted to apply is not the same as qualifying: every ordinary criterion still applies, and those routes turn on an invitation and a nomination, each its own process with its own timing. The prescribed list removes one barrier. It does not remove the others.

Worth saying clearly, because it cuts the other way: Schedule 3 does not apply to the 190, 491 or 494. Those Schedule 2 criteria contain no Schedule 3 criterion. Schedule 3 is the partner-route problem, not a universal one.

Where Schedule 3 then bites

In our experience the commonest path out of a section 48 bar is the onshore partner visa, precisely because Class UK is prescribed. And that is exactly where the second barrier appears.

Schedule 3 is headed "Additional criteria applicable to unlawful non-citizens and certain bridging visa holders". Clause 820.211(2)(d)(ii) requires an onshore partner applicant who does not hold a substantive visa to satisfy Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004, "unless the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying those criteria." There is a narrow alternative at 820.211(2)(d)(i) for certain diplomatic and special-purpose entrants, who satisfy criterion 3002 instead — twelve months rather than 28 days. It applies to very few people. How Schedule 3 works for partner applicants, from the criteria to the waiver, is covered in Schedule 3 for partner visas.

Why the same person hits both barriers

Note the overlap in the trigger. Section 48 applies to someone who does not hold a substantive visa. Schedule 3 applies to someone who does not hold a substantive visa. The person who needs the section 48 exception is therefore almost always the same person who needs the Schedule 3 waiver. Clearing the first barrier lands you squarely against the second.

Which criteria apply, and why 3003 usually does not, is set out in criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004 explained.

The order the questions have to be answered in

1. Is there a section 48 bar at all? Check what the refusal or cancellation actually was. A section 501 refusal or a bridging visa refusal does not create one, and only the listed cancellation powers do.
2. If there is, is the visa you want on the regulation 2.12 list? If it is not, no amount of merit helps while the person remains in Australia.
3. If it is on the list, does Schedule 3 apply? For an onshore partner application without a substantive visa, yes.
4. If Schedule 3 applies, is the waiver arguable? By this stage 3001's 28 days have almost always passed, so the case rests on compelling reasons for not applying the criteria at all. What belongs in that submission is covered in what goes in a Schedule 3 waiver submission.
5. Only then, is applying from offshore the better route? Section 48 does not bar an application made while the person is outside the migration zone, so lodging from offshore sidesteps it — but note section 48(3) above: departing and returning on a bridging visa does not. The cost is separation for the offshore processing period, and there are risks of their own where there is a cancellation or adverse history. It is a real option, not a concession, and it should be priced honestly against the waiver attempt.

Getting step 1 right matters more than anything after it

In our experience the most common error is assuming a bar exists when it does not, or assuming none exists when it does. Both are avoidable: the refusal or cancellation notice states the provision it was made under, and that document settles the question. Anyone advising on step 4 without having read the notice from step 1 is guessing.

Migration Vision advises on section 48 and Schedule 3 matters for clients across Australia and offshore. Nobody can promise an outcome on a discretionary waiver — what can be done is to establish precisely which barriers apply and build the case that fits them. Full partner criteria and current charges: 820/801 guide. The standalone treatment of the bar itself is in the section 48 bar explained.

Reviewed by Dr Asad Muhammad Khan, Registered Migration Agent, MARN 2619525. Updated 26 August 2026 — section 48 verified against the Migration Act 1958 (Compilation No. 171, C2026C00232, in force 4 June 2026) and regulation 2.12 and Schedule 3 against the Migration Regulations 1994, Compilation No. 288 (F2026C00667, in force 1 July 2026), both on legislation.gov.au. This article is general information, not migration advice for your circumstances, and the law may change.