Abstract
This study interrogates what we term the qualification-match myth—the assumption that higher qualifications and accumulated human capital necessarily improve skilled migrants’ employment outcomes. Focusing on migrants from non-English-speaking backgrounds in Australia, we examine whether advanced degrees, retraining, and accumulated human capital enhance or undermine employment prospects. Using a convergent mixed-methods design, we integrate survey data from 105 migrants with in-depth interviews conducted with the same migrants and 24 recruiters. Quantitative analysis using PLS-SEM reveals a negative association between advanced qualifications and employment outcomes, while qualitative findings illuminate the institutional logics and recruitment heuristics through which recruiters privilege local experience, communicative competence, and cultural familiarity over formal credentials. Host-country degrees offer limited advantage, and migrants respond to devaluation through strategies such as retraining, accepting survival jobs, or concealing qualifications. By integrating findings through meta-inferences, the study provides explanatory insights into paradoxical outcomes that would be inaccessible through a single method. Conceptually, we show how qualifications can shift from assets to liabilities, reframing them as weak, context-dependent signals rather than universally valued capital. Empirically, the findings challenge human capital–based selection and migration systems, highlighting risks of systemic skill underutilization and implications for employer practices, policy design, and social inclusion. While focused on Asian migrants in Australia, the study advances global mobility research by demonstrating the value of mixed methods for uncovering hidden labour market inequalities and questioning taken-for-granted assumptions about merit and employability