Dramatic changes to Australian universities¡¯ immigration risk ratings have prompted warnings that the system has ¡°passed its sell-by date¡±.

In a 30 September update, 15 institutions were promoted from level 2 ¨C signifying moderate risk ¨C to the optimum level 1 rating. It leaves just 13 universities with inferior risk assessments, down from 28 before the update and 29 in mid-2024, when three carried the worst level 3 grade.

The ratings of the major source countries have also changed, with India and Vietnam ¨C the second and fourth top markets respectively ¨C improving from level 3 to level 2. Nepal, the third ranked source country, moved to level 2 earlier this year. Meanwhile China, the top source country, has been downgraded from level 1 to level 2 in a change that has baffled observers.

The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) calculates the risk ratings using metrics such as visa refusals, asylum applications and breaches of visa conditions. DHA does not disclose the ratings, which dictate whether would-be students must include evidence of their English skills and financial reserves in their visa applications.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

The update means the system now has little practical impact on universities. Visa applicants only need to supply the extra information if they are enrolled at a level 2 institution and come from one of the level 3 nations ¨C of which Colombia, Pakistan and the Philippines are now the only significant source countries.

Critics say the system no longer influences institutional behaviour. Reputable universities are more worried about their reputations than their immigration risk ratings, while disreputable institutions ¨C those that make money by recruiting non-genuine students ¨C are not sufficiently disadvantaged by unfavourable risk ratings to change their business model.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

But the system is blamed for encouraging perverse behaviour such as ¡°course-hopping¡±, where students enrol with low-risk universities ¨C assuming it will boost their chances of securing visas ¨C and switch to low-cost colleges after reaching Australia.

Mike Ferguson, a former DHA official who designed the latest iteration of the system, said it had originated at a time of rapid increase in overseas enrolments. ¡°Now we¡¯re in a very different scenario where we want to manage numbers,¡± said Ferguson, pro vice-chancellor of Charles Sturt University.

Cost of living is an increasing challenge for overseas students, he said, while a recent Jobs and Skills Australia report highlighted shortcomings in students¡¯ English language abilities. ¡°The evidence level framework has passed its sell-by date. We should really be asking all students to provide evidence of English language and funds with their visa applications. That¡¯s the expectation of the community, and it helps manage integrity.¡±

Neil Fitzroy, Australian managing director of the Oxford International Education Group, agreed that it was time for the system to go. ¡°It has shifted significantly from its original design and purpose. [The] ratings were never intended as marketing tools or indicators of institutional quality [but] many students and agents still believe ¨C whether reality or perception ¨C that visas are faster and approval rates higher when applying through a ¡®low-risk¡¯ provider.¡±

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Fitzroy said the updating of risk ratings every six months or so produced a ¡°ping-pong¡± effect. ¡°As countries are rated ¡®lower risk¡¯, some providers ease their documentary requirements. If Home Affairs then refuses more visas, or if onshore student behaviour generates risk, the country¡¯s rating falls again. The reverse also occurs.¡±

Independent immigration expert Abul Rizvi said the general improvement in risk ratings suggested that universities were recruiting students more carefully, or at least giving that impression. ¡°Whether that¡¯s just learned better behaviour or actual better behaviour, I don¡¯t know. They¡¯re presenting better data to the department, and that has led to an increase in the approval rate [which] has led to a reduction in the risk rating.¡±

Rizvi, a former deputy secretary of the Immigration Department, said India¡¯s better risk rating reflected an improvement in the success rate of visa applications from the subcontinent. Grant rates for Indian higher education students have improved markedly over the past two years, although English language and vocational training students still struggle to obtain visas.

He said the downgrading of China¡¯s risk rating was surprising and may have been caused by a surge in asylum applications. More than 200 Chinese citizens a month apply for protection visas within Australia ¨C more than almost any nationality ¨C with about 90 per cent ultimately rejected.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

However, India has overtaken China as top source of visa applications this year, producing close to 300 onshore applications a month ¨C of which about 99 per cent are rejected. The DHA statistics do not reveal the visa status of asylum applicants. Rizvi said it was possible that Chinese asylum applications, unlike those from India, mainly came from students.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com