The new rule will replace the current “Duration of Status” (D/S) admissions mechanism with fixed end dates, require students and exchange visitors to file formal extension applications with US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), shorten grace periods, and prevent programme changes.

We have written extensively on the rule change and so won’t unpack it in great detail again here. Suffice to say it has the potential to be extremely disruptive for current and prospective international students in the US, and is therefore of great concern to international educators and stakeholders.

The main issues are:

• The time limits imposed by the new rule are impractical for many students. Because most students will need to extend their stay beyond the four-year limit imposed by the rule, this opens the door to processing delays and, most significantly, uncertainty in the student’s academic pathway.

• The extension decision will rest with USCIS as opposed to the student’s institution as it does under the D/S system. This exposes the student, as one conference presenter put it, to “hard vetting opportunities” that could disrupt the student’s programme or prevent them from progressing to further study or to Optional Practical Training (OPT).

Because of the rule’s significance, the response from US educators and stakeholders has been considerable. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on 28 August 2025 with a tight 30-day public comment period that closed on 29 September 2025. Even within that short window, the filing attracted more than 15,700 comments, the overwhelming majority of which were in opposition.

In its comment, for example, NAFSA said the proposed rule “would replace a proven, flexible policy that has served the nation, international students, and exchange visitors for decades with a policy that is duplicative, burdensome and creates uncertainty.”

The Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration said that it “objects to this rule in full,” asserting that, “Implementing the rule would have significantly greater economic effects than estimated by [Department of Homeland Security] on US higher education institutions, including from the loss of the international student population and economic costs to local communities.”

Even so, on 5 May 2026, the Department of Homeland Security submitted the final rule to the Office of Management and Budget for review, which is the last procedural step before the final rule will be published in the Federal Register.

The general expectation within the sector is the rule will proceed. As NAFSA explains: “We expect OMB’s review to be expeditious and for the rule to be published in the Federal Register in the not too distant future. The final rule will go into effect 60 days after publication.”

A bipartisan appeal

Against all of that administrative process and critique, a notable, late-breaking development comes in the form of , with two Republican signatories and two Democrats.

The rare bipartisan appeal expresses the group’s concern about the proposed rule, and asks the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Management and Budget “to preserve Duration of Status and ensure efficient visa processing policies that support a stable environment for international students and scholars.”

Reflecting some of the key points from the critical commentary filed during the 30-day period in September 2025, the letter sets out that, “Replacing D/S with a capped admission period of four years would require many students to seek repeated extensions, creating unnecessary administrative burdens, processing delays, and disruptions to academic continuity. These changes would undermine America’s ability to attract and retain top global talent at a time when competitor nations continue expanding efforts to recruit international students, researchers, and high-skilled STEM workers. Recent surveys found that nearly half of international graduate students and postdoctoral researchers would not have chosen to study in the United States if it had a fixed admission period.”

The congressional representatives also describe some of the local and national impacts of falling international enrolments: “Maintaining D/S is also vital in our efforts to strengthen domestic talent pipelines and local economies. Because international students are generally ineligible for federal financial aid and often pay full tuition, they help sustain academic programs, expand institutional capacity, and support educational opportunities for American students. In fact, for every international student enrolled at a US public university, two additional American students are able to attend…If the United States experiences even a one-third decline in foreign STEM graduates, the country could lose 6 to 11 percent of its high-skilled STEM workforce. Economic research estimates that such a decline could reduce the U.S. GDP by $240 to $481 billion annually within a decade – creating fewer new businesses and jobs, reducing global competitiveness, and shrinking tax revenues that support public services and infrastructure.”

For additional background, please see:

• “US to end ‘Duration of Status’ for F, J, and I visas and limit the time international students can study in the US“
• “US immigration officials allege OPT is being widely abused and say ‘more actions are forthcoming’“

The post Bipartisan congressional group calls on US administration to preserve Duration of Status for international student visas appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

As of 1 June 2026, universities will be judged according to that demand:

• A sponsored study visa refusal rate of less than 5%;
• An enrolment rate of at least 95%;
• A course completion rate of at least 85% (rising to 95% in 2027).

Only if an institution is rated green will it not be sanctioned or penalised in some way by the Home Office. The red rating band allows for sanctions as severe as the revocation of a university’s license to sponsor (aka recruit) international students. Importantly, the RAG rating is not an aggregate across the three BCA metrics; rather, the university’s rating is based on its lowest score on any one of those compliance requirements.

The introduction of this strict compliance regime underscores the importance of a new British Council report, “.” The report says it is urgent for UK universities to consider expanding recruitment beyond the predominant form of attracting students from source countries. An underused enrolment pipeline, says the report, is international students who are already enrolled in some kind of UK education, whether onshore (e.g., in a bachelor’s programme) or offshore (e.g., via transnational education programming, such as a branch campus or through a foreign partnership).

The dangers of overreliance on direct overseas recruitment

About three-quarters (72%) of current foreign students in UK universities were recruited directly from their home countries, primarily through educational agents, student fairs, institutional outreach, and digital channels. Direct overseas recruitment is the norm – but it is also highly vulnerable to external events.

For example, foreign currency fluctuations, policy shifts, geo-political tensions, and affordability crises often dramatically affect international enrolments, and they are doing so right now. Non-EU commencements in the UK have been falling over the past couple of years, especially for postgraduate programmes, where most international students are enrolled. Immigration policies (including the dependant’s ban in 2024) sparked the trend. The updated BCA thresholds and associated Red-Amber-Green (RAG) system will ingrain it further.

The RAG effect on direct recruitment

The RAG system makes it much riskier to directly recruit students from several key non-EU markets. The study visa refusal rate threshold, in particular, is a game changer: it coincides with massive spikes in visa refusals for students from key growth markets, as shown in the chart below.

Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Bangladesh are important growth markets for many UK universities – but the surging rejection rates observed for each this year now increases the risk of a red RAG rating.

Among other penalties, a first red rating results in an institution having its sponsored study visa allocation (CAS) reduced by a minimum of 10% and a “final warning” that compels it to stay out of red for the next five annual BCA assessments. A subsequent red rating (after the final warning) is worse still: it constitutes a “serious breach of sponsorship duties” and allows the Home Office to remove a university’s right to sponsor international students.

Secondary routes are more resilient to external shocks

The rapid decline in the number of sponsored study visa applications and issuances over the past few months is largely due to UK universities and students from high-risk markets anticipating – and reacting to – the impact of the RAG system. Even before the new regime came into effect this week, some universities simply stopped recruiting in countries that were perceived as high risk in terms of visa refusals, and many students have withdrawn their applications to avoid any chance of having a visa refusal attached to their student profile.

Universities that can best withstand the effects of the new compliance standards are either elite institutions (less reliant on high-risk markets) or those that have contingency plans in place, such as the ability to recruit students already enrolled in these two ways:

• Offshore in transnational education (TNE);
• Onshore in K-12 schools, foundational, and degree programmes.

In both those cases, students are already invested in obtaining a UK qualification. They are already enrolled somewhere in the system – which means they don’t have to be recruited directly once more from their home countries.

As the report suggests, the opportunity here is to encourage existing onshore and offshore students to “convert” again, perhaps most crucially into a postgraduate programme. Those programmes attract 70% of onshore international students, and they are also the most affected by recent policies.

The potential of pathway recruitment

The following table shows that secondary entry routes for postgraduate studies at UK universities are growing, while direct recruitment is falling. For example, between 2022/23 and 2023/24:

• TNE (as an entry route to postgraduate studies in the UK) grew by +129%;
• Pre-sessional English (e.g., English-language courses for students to gain proficiency before entering degree programmes) was up +7.5%;
• Prior UK study (e.g., undergraduate to postgraduate or postgraduate to another advanced degree) was up +39%.

By contrast, direct recruitment was down -13.5%.

The crucial role of the undergraduate pipeline

When international bachelor’s enrolments fall, there are downstream effects. A significant number of international undergraduates progress to postgraduate studies (29,900 in 2023/24). The report notes:

“This makes UG2PG [i.e., undergraduate to postgraduate progression] a pivotal mechanism for institutional resilience: it captures the extent to which providers can convert prior UK study into master’s enrolments, rather than relying predominantly on new international recruitment at the point of entry.”

This point is especially important when looking at the markets where negative pressures on demand are the strongest. Though students from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, and Kenya are primarily enrolled in postgraduate programmes, anywhere from 20%–40% (depending on market) are in bachelor’s programmes. Collectively, this is a lot of students who can be recruited from within the UK.

Students with prior UK study experience and a history of compliance with immigration rules generally have a stronger chance of being approved for a second sponsored study visa (e.g., for postgraduate studies) than applicants from high-risk markets. They have demonstrated that they are genuine students whose primary reason for being in the UK is to study rather than to access work or immigration routes through the back door.

In turn, secondary pathways into undergraduate programmes deserve more attention, says the report:

“Universities’ foundation and [private pathway programmes] imply a sizeable “hidden” feeder pipeline into undergraduate degrees. This matters because these entrants often represent students with a higher level of commitment to a UK degree, and they can provide a stabilising buffer when direct recruitment is disrupted.”

Recommendations

The British Council advises:

“Institutions should treat students with prior engagement with UK education … as part of their resilience strategy [and] scale outreach work with UK schools, TNE, and international partnerships routes where feasible (including progression agreements and joint delivery).”

And continues: “All institutions, including highly ranked institutions, should therefore proactively develop and formalise progression pipelines … to sustain their future onshore conversion base.”

Another important recommendation concerns data. The report proves that the sector, and government, needs to capture and track pipeline progressions for a true understanding of risk. For example, rather than simply consider Pakistan a high-risk market, looking at the entry routes and progressions of Pakistani students could show which routes are more likely to contain genuine students who will succeed in their programmes and be compliant.

The report asserts: “To move from recruitment analytics to sustainability and quality, entry routes should be linked to continuation, completion, progression and employment outcomes.”

The report is broadly relevant across destinations

The report offers food for thought for universities across the Big Four because they share a common need right now: strategies to mitigate risk in the face of tightened immigration policies and heightened regulatory requirements.

For additional background, please see:

• “Narrowing bands of compliance: How the UK’s new RAG system will impact international student recruitment”
• “UK: Sponsored study visa issuances down, rejection rates up, and more”
• “UK universities bracing for a further decline in international enrolments”
• “UK: 7 in 10 universities report declining international postgraduate enrolments; visa rejections are part of the story”

The post Report: International students already studying in the UK or offshore through TNE represent an increasingly important recruitment opportunity appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

This has always been true to some extent, with the costs of study and living abroad a particularly frustrating barrier for many students. However, the list of barriers is growing, and visa rejections occupy an increasingly prominent position on this list – including for students applying to the UK.

The UK’s sponsored study visa approval rate used to be higher than in Australia, and much higher than in Canada and the US. But in the six months up to the end of March 2026, the refusal rate for students from many of the UK’s fastest-growing student source markets has doubled, tripled, or increased even more drastically compared with the same period in 2024/25. In the case of Pakistan, the rejection rate has increased nearly six-fold from just under 6% to 41%.

Higher visa refusal rates are conveniently dovetailing with the UK government’s overall immigration goals. The narrowing of study, work, and immigration opportunities is happening against a background of quietly coordinated and complementary visa processes and policies.

This interplay is the main story behind the Home Office issuing -32% fewer sponsored study visas to international students in Q1 2026 than in Q1 2025.

Massive rises in visa rejections for some markets

In the six-month stretch of Q4 2025 and Q1 2026, sponsored study visa refusals skyrocketed compared with the same period in 2024/25 for Pakistani (41% refusal rate), Bangladeshi (26%), Ghanaian (26%), Sri Lankan (22%), and Nigerian students (20%). The following chart, created by the Nous Group, shows the dramatic contrasts between this recent period and the same period in 2024/25.

The chart also shows that American and Chinese students, who have always benefitted from high approval rates, have become even more likely to be approved.

Why are Chinese and American students so much more likely to be approved?

More than 99% of Chinese and American sponsored study applications were approved by UK immigration officials in the year ending March 2026.

The growing discrepancy between this rate and those in emerging markets such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria, is greatly influenced by the immigration climate in the UK.

The ruling Labour government is plummeting in popularity, not least because of among a sizeable segment of voters that immigration levels are not lower.

Rachel Wolf, writing in , predicts that to attempt to remain in power, Labour will employ a range of right-aligned tactics including “[cutting] immigration and [going] after easy wins (such as international students).”

Some international students are better targets than others in this regard. Chinese and American students do not increase net migration levels because the vast majority of them leave the UK after completing their studies.

In contrast, students from countries experiencing dramatic jumps in visa rejection rates are also the most likely to want to remain in the UK to work and immigrate.

The following chart from the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford depicts striking differences in “stay rates” across four nationalities (as measured by proportions that still had a valid sponsored study visa in 2024 after first arriving in 2019).

Some institutions more affected than others

The composition of a British university’s international student body is now a major determinant of how well that university can tolerate the clampdown on student flows from some countries.

For example, Higher Education Statistics Agency () data shows that Chinese students – who have a 99% approval rate – accounted for more than 40% of all international students at elite Russell Group universities in 2024/25.

Around 105,000 Chinese students were enrolled at these institutions that academic year – which is nearly three-quarters of all Chinese students in the UK.

Heavy reliance on Chinese enrolments may be risky in the long term, but for now, it buffers elite institutions against the system-wide trend of students in high-growth emerging markets being either rejected for a visa or withdrawing their application.

The rest of the country’s universities tend to be more diversified across nationalities and rely more on enrolments from emerging markets. Ironically, though this diversification was encouraged by the UK government’s 2019 International Education Strategy (and 2021 update), it now exacerbates the many are experiencing.

Nous Group director Nicholas Dillon notes that lower-ranked universities that continue efforts to recruit in high-risk markets face escalating costs of acquisition per student (e.g., through increased documentation checks, interviewing, and other activities aimed removing visa rejection risk). As Mr Dillon says: “This matters, as margins are already tighter at many lower-ranked providers.”

The massive impact of visa rejections and delays in processing

Students in the regions most affected by visa rejection rates are also the most likely to be experiencing delays in visa processing. Wonkhe’s associate editor, Jim Dickinson, reports:

“At some providers, reports suggested up to half of a winter cohort was still awaiting a decision despite a Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) issued before Christmas – petitions described students stuck on “SLA not met” notifications weeks after submitting biometrics. The delays were reported to fall hardest on applicants from Pakistan, South Asia, and parts of Africa.”

(Editor’s note: “SLA not met” stands for “Service Level Agreement not met” and indicates that UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) has failed to make a decision on the file within their standard processing timeframe.)

Higher rates of visa refusals and visa processing delays are prompting two related trends:

• Students from high-risk markets are increasingly withdrawing their applications so that their student profile is not marred by evidence of a rejection.

• Many universities are scaling back – or even stopping – student recruitment in those markets to avoid being sanctioned under new, stiffer Basic Compliance Assessment (BCA) rules. Among other benchmark requirements, institutions must stay within a 5% refusal rate range or risk penalisation including, at the extreme end, the removal of their license to enrol international students.

Death by a thousand cuts?

Mr Dickinson explains that dynamics such as visa rejections and processing delays for students from some countries are reinforcing the deterrent effect of more restrictive government policies:

“The contraction [of student flows] is being administered through the plumbing of the system – a delay here, a withdrawn application there, a compliance threshold that does the deciding, a salary floor that quietly closes a route.”

“Each lever is individually deniable. The aggregate is a bust delivered by stealth, with no single author and accountability that sits nowhere.”

Students pay a steep price, says Mr Dickinson:

“There is a bleak logic to it all. A withdrawn application doesn’t count as a refusal in the compliance metrics. So in a system that punishes refusals, the withdrawal route protects the institution’s number while the student absorbs the loss – the non-refundable flights, the priority fee that was never honoured, the place that evaporated. The delay creates the pressure – the withdrawal discharges it without leaving a mark on anyone’s record.”

Amidst these conditions, an increasing number of students from high-risk markets are realising that the doorway to study in the UK is narrowing.

For additional background, please see:

• “UK universities bracing for a further decline in international enrolments”
• “Universities urged to focus on factors they can control as policy settings continue to depress international student enrolments in the Big Four”

The post UK: Sponsored study visa issuances down, rejection rates up, and more appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

Those policies were introduced to limit the number of new international students coming into the country after years of double-digit growth. But they overshot their target: far fewer students have come to Canada since 2024 than the government predicted. The confusing rollout of each new rule reduced international students’ confidence in the benefits of applying to Canadian institutions.

However, a significant policy reversal in November 2025 appears to have (1) sparked new interest in Canada, and (2) improved Canadian institutions’ potential to recruit international students in the current immigration context.

Dramatic increase in search interest

Keystone Education Group says that in December 2025, there was a +55% year-over-year increase in international student searches for Canada on its platform – a major change after two years of decline.

The turning point for the rebound was the government’s 6 November 2025 announcement that master’s and doctoral-level students would be removed from the 2026 cap on new international enrolments.

Incoming postgraduate students no longer need a Provincial Attestation Letter (PAL) for a study permit, and they are now permitted to bring their families with them. Canadian immigration (IRCC) processes those students and families’ applications together, eliminating any uncertainty about whether partners/dependent children will have to wait longer than students for a visa decision.

Keystone’s data also shows an uptick in master’s-level interest. In October 2025, searches for this level were down by -6% compared with October 2024. Then in November, they grew by +28%. Following that, there were sustained, monthly increases:

• +55% in December 2025
• +50% in January 2026
• +21% in February 2026
• +45% in March 2026

Keystone says this pattern suggests “a structural shift in student interest, not a momentary spike.”
Mark Bennett, VP of Research and Insight at Keystone, says:

“Prospective students react clearly and often very consistently to policy changes, and our search data is a great way of tracking that. What’s important here is that it’s the relative calm and clarity that seems to be having a positive effect on Canadian interest. Audiences who may have been struggling to understand Canada’s position on international education are responding to a clearer signal here.”

More evidence of an upturn

Findings from IDP’s most recent Emerging Futures survey, EF9, also show that Canada is regaining popularity. As the following chart illustrates, Australia (+10%), Canada (+7%), and “other” destinations (+9%) gained significant traction this year as destinations students are considering. This is in contrast to lower interest for the UK (-3%) and especially the US (-9%). The comparison is the data from EF9 (conducted in March and April 2026) versus data from EF7 (February 2025).

Will Canada’s momentum continue?

International students’ growing interest in Canada this year comes amidst a more beneficial external and internal environment than in 2024 and 2025.

External factors include:

• Significantly lower interest in the US given the second Trump administration’s immigration policy direction;
  
• More cautious recruitment on the part of UK universities given strict new compliance thresholds (including a requirement that institutions maintain a visa refusal rate of less than 5% to avoid sanctions).

Internal factors include:

• The postgraduate exemption from the cap;
  
• The ability of postgraduates to bring their families;
  
• Greater policy stability, which leads to (1) more confidence among international prospects, and (2) improved ability of institutions and agents to advise students given less confusion and volatility;
  
• More clarity on which programmes are eligible for the Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP);
  
• Higher visa approval rates for university programmes: according to IRCC data, undergraduate approvals rose from a 22% share of all approvals in 2024 to 35% in 2025, and at the postgraduate level, the jump was from 18.5% in 2024 to 30% in 2025;
  
• Last but not least – more targeted recruitment strategies by Canadian institutions.

The question of whether or not Canada can regain its footing as a preferred leading destination depends especially on the internal factors above – including policy stability.

For additional background, please see:

• “New international student permit approvals for Canada fell below COVID levels in 2025“
• “Canada: Government audit finds impact of international student cap far greater than expected“
• “Canada’s foreign enrolment has fallen by nearly 300,000 students over the last two years“
• “Canada announces international student cap numbers for 2026 and updated programme guidance“

The post New data provides early signals that Canada’s popularity as a study destination is on the rise appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

Lowest volume of visa applications in the past five years

The Home Office received -33% fewer sponsored study visa applications from students (main applicants) in January–April 2026 than in the same period in 2025. This follows a -21% decline in applications in Q4 2025 versus Q4 2024.

The chart below was published by Nous Group director in mid-May.

As the chart depicts, this year’s January–April visa application volume is the lowest in the past five years. It is -11% below the recent-year low for the same period in 2024, and in April 2026 alone, only 8,900 applications were received. This is down nearly -40% compared with April 2025.

What is driving the decline?

Visa applications from key markets dropped dramatically when the government announced in the summer of 2023 that most international students would no longer be able to bring their families with them to the UK as of January 2024.

However, demand began to pick up in 2025 as the shock wore off: in May 2025 alone, submissions from main applicants (i.e., students rather than dependants) were up +19% compared with May 2024.

This suggests that it wasn’t the dependants ban that prompted the past seven months of applications declines. Rather, many industry analysts believe the drop was spurred by a government announcement in May 2025 that universities would soon need to meet higher standards of compliance in order to continue to host (aka sponsor) international students. The three updated Basic Compliance Assessment (BCA) standards demand that institutions maintain:

1. A visa refusal rate of less than 5%
2. An enrolment rate of at least 95%
3. A course completion rate of at least 90%

The government then elaborated in January 2026 that failure to meet even one of the three benchmarks above would land institutions in the “red” or “amber” bands of a “red, amber, green” (RAG) assessment structure. Falling into “red” (e.g., exceeding 5% in visa rejections) can lead to a range of sanctions – the most extreme of which is that an institution has its licence to sponsor international students revoked.

The updated BCA thresholds (and associated RAG system) represent a much more stringent test of compliance than what they replace. found that had the updated benchmarks been in place in 2024, more than 20 universities would have failed at least one threshold and about 49,000 students might have been affected.

The immediate impact on applications

Following on the heels of the May 2025 announcement of the tightened BCA thresholds, the average visa approval rate for international students dropped to 85% in Q4 2025, down from 91% in Q4 2024. Universities were fully aware that the 85% approval rate is a full 10 percentage points below the upcoming BCA threshold of 95%.

For many, the lower average approval rate was the trigger for adopting a more cautious recruitment approach to high-growth markets with higher-than-average refusal rates.

As early as December 2025, some institutions hit the brakes entirely on recruiting in important emerging markets such as Bangladesh and Pakistan, countries where visa rejection rates hover between 18% and 22%. Many also adopted more a more careful approach to markets such as Nigeria, India, and Nepal, including:

• Extending fewer offers
• Checking documents more rigorously
• Holding more credibility interviews

A recent British Universities International Liaison Association (BUILA) survey found that around a third of surveyed UK universities reported curtailing recruitment in certain markets to reduce compliance risk.

The shift towards lower-risk markets continues, and the 1 June official implementation of the stricter BCA metrics will do nothing to halt this momentum.

High-risk markets are high-volume markets

Over the past couple of years, demand from the UK’s top two sources of students, India and China – as well as from the key emerging market of Nigeria (#4) – has been falling. The chart below details commencements from 2005–2025, and it highlights just how sharp the declines have been from India and Nigeria.

Strong demand from Nepal and Pakistan has been essential to mitigating declines from other top markets.

If the BCA compliance benchmarks continue to dampen UK universities’ confidence in recruiting in some Indian states with as well as in Nigeria, Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh, the downward pressure on overall international commencements and enrolments could be severe. Collectively, according to HESA data, those five countries accounted for 39% of international enrolments in the UK in 2024/25. Looking at the entire student population (domestic and international), roughly 1 in 10 students were from India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Nepal, or Bangladesh in that academic year.

The impact on revenue and operations

Should international commencements fall again in the 2026/27 September intake, it will be devastating for many UK universities. On 19 May, the recruitment firm published an analysis of revenue sources across the higher education sector and found that “22 universities now earn more than half of all their income from overseas tuition … eight years ago, none did.”

Forecasts for coming years

The Office for Students (OfS), which is the independent regulator of higher education in England, released its on 14 May. Key inputs for the analysis are the self-reports and projections of 279 participating UK universities.

Of those universities, more than a third (36%) reported an operating deficit for 2024/25. On average, providers expect a small worsening of the financial picture in 2025/26 and then a rebound in 2026/27.

The OfS is skeptical of this forecast:

“Our assessment is that this projected recovery remains based on overly optimistic assumptions, particularly in the context of continued volatility in student recruitment.”

It notes that among responding universities, “non-UK entrants fell by -7.7% [in 2024/25], which was -9% below [providers’] forecast.”

Despite this decline, responding universities reported to the OfS that their forecast is for international undergraduate numbers to increase by +24.6% and postgraduate enrolments by +26.8% between 2024/25 and 2028/29.

The OfS warns that it would be financially imprudent to operate according to such an expectation, noting that “recent published visa data from the Home Office suggests a possible renewed decline in non-UK student numbers, particularly from key markets such as India and China.” The chart below is pulled from the report, and you’ll see that beginning in the fall of 2025 – as the BCA thresholds began to affect recruitment – international visa applications began to soften.

The OfS presented three financial scenarios in the report that “could happen if recruitment changes and providers take no mitigating action.”

Scenario 1 assumes no growth in international and domestic enrolments, Scenario 2 anticipates a modest reduction, and Scenario 3 describes a larger reduction of enrolments. The OfS summarises:

“Under the ‘no growth’ scenario, which assumes flat student recruitment from 2025/26 onwards, cumulative net income losses relative to forecast could reach £2.7 billion by 2028/29. Under this scenario 163 providers, representing 58.4% of the sector, would report a deficit. In the most severe scenario modelled, cumulative income losses increase to £4.2 billion, with deficits reported by up to 196 providers (70.3% of the sector as a whole).”

The report concludes: “Variations in student recruitment in 2024/25 and 2025/26 are prominent in the financial challenges facing the sector. Further volatility in recruitment, in 2026/27 and beyond, could present further significant challenges.”

For additional background, please see:

• “Foreign enrolments in UK higher education dipped again in fall 2025”
• “Narrowing bands of compliance: How the UK’s new RAG system will impact international student recruitment”
• “UK’s stiffening compliance regime already having an impact on international student recruitment”

The post UK universities bracing for a further decline in international enrolments appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

The order dictates that “no applications may be made to the National VET Regulator under section 9 of the Act until after the day 12 months after the day this instrument commences.” The order is in immediate effect and it means that the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) will not accept applications from new providers or for new courses for a 12-month period beginning 19 May 2026.

The order specifically prevents any new applications for registration in the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS). CRICOS is Australia’s official government register of education providers and courses that are approved to enrol international students. And The Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act 2000 requires that any Australian institution enrolling visa-holding foreign students must be registered on CRICOS.

The 18 May order applies to private vocational education and training (VET) providers as well as those in the English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students (ELICOS) sector. Public providers, including TAFEs and public universities, are exempt.

In other words, during the year-long freeze, no new private VET or ELICOS providers may be established, nor may existing private-sector providers establish any new courses.

A background brief accompanying the assistant minister’s order explains that there are two exceptions:

“The Suspension will not apply to applications made by any existing provider that relate to adding:

• a location for a course the provider is already registered on CRICOS to deliver
• a course identified as superseded (non-equivalent) on the National Register (www.training.gov.au), where the provider is already registered to deliver the superseded (non-equivalent) course.”

An accompanying statement from Mr Hill says that the freeze is necessary to “provide ASQA with additional time to address sector integrity issues while processing existing applications with a focus on rigour, scrutiny, and integrity.”

The assistant minister draws a direct line in his comments from the order to two substantive government reviews of Australia’s immigration system – the Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia’s Visa System (the Nixon Review) and the Migration Review in 2023 – which identified “significant integrity concerns within Australia’s international education system, particularly in the vocational education and training (VET) sector.”

“Suspending new registrations to teach international students VET or English language onshore is not a decision taken lightly and will allow the Government to address integrity concerns about new market entrants and oversaturation in the international VET and ELICOS sectors,” added the Assistant Minister. “Frankly, it raises suspicions when at the same time student numbers in these parts of the sector are moderating the regulator continues to see a rush of new market entrants.”

A blunt instrument

“The Albanese Government has quietly dropped one of the most consequential blows to Australia’s international education sector in years and it landed without warning,” says . “This is not simply a technical regulatory change. It is a deliberate attempt to reshape the international education market to favour public providers while freezing out the private sector…It freezes the entire pipeline of new entrants regardless of quality, innovation, or workforce relevance. It also blocks private providers from diversifying their offerings.”

Ian Pratt, Managing Director at Lexis English, also questioned the government’s approach, noting that, “We now appear to have reached the point where, instead of properly resourcing regulators to assess applications and enforce standards, the solution is simply to stop accepting applications altogether.”

“Instead of empowering the regulator to identify and remove poor operators, the government has chosen a blanket suspension targeting an entire segment of the sector,” he added on LinkedIn. “The genuinely frustrating part is that quality independent providers are not the problem here. Many of the most innovative, student-focused and internationally responsive organisations in Australian education sit within the private sector. These are the providers building niche programmes, responding quickly to employer demand, investing in student experience, and actively supporting regional economies.”

Part of a larger pattern?

The freeze on new CRICOS registrations arrives in the midst of an ongoing political debate around migration levels in Australia. Both the governing and opposition parties have offered policy positions based in part on reducing immigration levels, including with respect to international students.

A statement from Universities Australia Chief Executive Officer Luke Sheehy cautions in response that, “After two years of instability and policy swings, what the sector and students need now is stability, certainty and a clear long-term strategy.

“International students are not the low-hanging fruit both sides of politics are treating them as in the migration debate. Significant cuts to international student numbers would have real consequences for the economy and our universities at a time both are doing it tough.

“Australia cannot afford another race to the bottom driven by stop-start policy settings, political signalling or measures that damage our economy, our universities and our global reputation.”

For additional background, please see:

• “Australia: Multiple data indicators signal further declines ahead for international student numbers“
• “Australia: Student visa refusal rates reach record high amid weakening demand from China“
• “New IDP research shows link between visa uncertainty and the perceived ROI of study abroad“

The post Australia orders a year-long pause on new VET and ELICOS provider registrations appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

On 12 May, Todd M. Lyons, ICE’s acting director, called to announce that ICE has found more than 10,000 cases of fraud in the system on the part of dodgy employers and students.

Mr Lyons said that OPT has “become a magnet for fraud.”

He continued:

“When OPT was created under the Bush administration and expanded under the Obama administration, DHS had anticipated only a few thousand foreign students would receive training approval before returning home. Instead, OPT ballooned into an uncontrolled guest worker pipeline with hundreds of thousands of foreign students working in the United States. As the programme size has exploded, so has the fraud.”

Mr Lyons, and acting executive associate director for Homeland Security Operations (HSI) John Con, detailed the results of multiple investigations across the country, which include cases of “empty buildings with locked doors at addresses where hundreds of foreign students are allegedly employed … residential addresses listed as work sites for hundreds of foreign students – yet no employees were present.” Mr Lyons said:

“We are discovering evidence of organised fraud that spans national and international borders. This is not accidental. It is deliberate, coordinated, and criminal.”

Closing out the press conference, Mr Lyons concluded: “We will not tolerate abuse of our programmes, and more actions are forthcoming.”

In 2024/25, close to 300,000 international graduates participated in either OPT (one year) or STEM OPT (one year plus a two-year extension for STEM programme graduates).

A step toward restricting the OPT programme?

Many international education analysts believe the press conference is laying the groundwork for much stricter government oversight – or even the elimination – of the OPT programme.

There is strong political support for this direction within the governing Republican party, and as we reported last week, the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Joseph Edlow, has indicated that he wants a regulatory system that can “remove the ability for employment authorisations for F-1 students beyond the time that they are in school.”

It’s possible that a cumulative and coordinated administration strategy that gradually reduces the attractiveness of OPT – and more broadly, the opportunities for international students to work in the US after graduating – could be in play. Following are four measures whose inter-dynamics suggest this may already be the case.

1: Pause in visa processing. In January 2026, the government expanded its 39-country travel ban so it could impact not just students coming into the US, but also those already studying there. It announced that while current students from those countries could still apply for OPT, the processing of their applications would be paused. This “pause” remains active. OPT applicants cannot work in the US until their application is approved, leaving them in limbo and without any sense of when processing will resume.
Strategic negative impact on OPT? Yes. It becomes harder and less attractive for international students from travel ban countries to participate in OPT.

2: USCIS to decide how long international students can stay in the US. The Duration of Status (D/S) system, which allows many students to stay in the US past their programme end date if their Designated School Official decides they have a valid reason for needing more time, is expected to be terminated in September 2026. It will be replaced by a fixed-admission structure under which students will be allowed no more than four years of admission unless they get an extension. US Citizenship and Immigration Services officials will decide whether to approve the extension. Officials will be permitted to “use discretion,” which means they can make independent judgments and choices when reviewing requests from students. They will never have met those students, relying rather on a paper or electronic submission for their decision. Most F-1 students will need the extension to be eligible for OPT given that they would exhaust the four-year admission period just by completing their degree.
Strategic negative impact on OPT? Yes. To enter OPT, students will need permission from immigration officials to stay in the US for longer than four years.

3: The framing of the OPT system as a “magnet for fraud” this week. In this week’s press conference, ICE may have been creating a context in which limiting OPT access would be justified. Mr Lyons characterised the incidences of fraud as “not victimless … [but] a blatant attack on the goodwill of the American people who generously allow foreign national access to our education system.”
Strategic negative impact on OPT? Yes. OPT is being positioned as a backdoor immigration pathway.

4: New rules for US employers hiring H-1B workers. In the March 2026 registration cycle for the H-1B lottery, a December 2025 “” was applied for the first time. This rule makes it more difficult for US employers to hire entry-level, highly skilled foreign workers and students.

It does so because petitions to sponsor entry-level or lower-salaried foreign workers and students receive fewer chances to “win” the lottery. There are now four salary levels in the selection process for H-1B recipients: #4 (the highest salary) gives four chances; #3 gives three chances; #2 gives two; and #1, the lowest, provides just one chance. Young international students in OPT, who represent a popular pool of H-1B prospects for employers, will be disadvantaged given their lower likelihood of being offered senior-level positions.
Strategic negative impact on OPT? Yes, indirectly. Receiving an H-1B is the primary route for highly skilled foreigners to work in the US for a considerable amount of time (three years with extensions possible to six years or even longer). It is also a dual-intent visa that allows employers to sponsor permanent residency for their H-1B workers.

By limiting the chances of international students to get an H-1B, the government also makes it less likely for them to eventually get a Green Card. The degree > OPT > H-1B > permanent residency pathway – while certainly not guaranteed – is the dream of many international students who choose the US for study abroad. Disrupting the OPT > H-1B pathway will jeopardise American universities and employers’ chances to attract some of the world’s top students.

Is OPT really so nefarious?

Many prominent companies, universities, and firms figure among the top employers of OPT participants. The table below is based on from 2024.

Apple CEO Tim Cook held a staff meeting in February in which he voiced his strong opposition to the Trump administration’s immigration approach. Mr Cook told employees: “For as long as I can remember, we have been a smarter, wiser, more innovative company because we’ve attracted the best and brightest from all corners of the world. I am going to continue to lobby lawmakers on this issue.”

Speaking of innovation

In 2022, a report from the found that one quarter of US billion-dollar companies were founded by international graduates of US universities.

More broadly, the latest instalment of the ’s long-running “New American Fortune 500” research programme found that in 2025, nearly half (46%) of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants. Further, the American Immigration Council found that “of the 14 companies that made the Fortune 500 list in 2025 for the first time, 10 were founded by immigrants or their children.”

A 2022 of American Community data found that “every additional 100 foreign-born workers with an advanced degree working in a STEM occupation creates roughly 86 jobs for U.S. workers.”

Nothing final yet

With the press conference this week, the Trump administration continues to signal that OPT is in its sights. Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, told in April:

“This current administration has been signaling very clearly that they’re seeking to end postgraduate Optional Practical Training. The former secretary of homeland security, the current secretary of homeland security, Republican senators have all been kind of waving the specter that there will be a proposed rule to end OPT.”

For additional background, please see:

• “US to end ‘Duration of Status’ for F, J, and I visas and limit the time international students can study in the US”
• “What international students need to know about study and work visas in the United States”
• “US: Student visa issuances fell by -36% in summer 2025; OPT uncertainty among factors affecting international student demand”

The post US immigration officials allege OPT is being widely abused and say “more actions are forthcoming” appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

The proposal also suggests that students in shorter programmes (e.g., two-year master’s) will need to leave at the end of their study programme unless they receive an extension, with language students allowed a 24-month maximum term of admission, including breaks and vacation time.

The government intends to abolish the “Duration of Status” (D/S) system, which allows students to stay beyond the end-date on their I-20 form if they can prove they have legitimate reasons for an extension. The D/S system has been in effect for decades.

As for when the D/S system will be formally replaced, Jill Allen Murray, Deputy Executive Director of Public Policy at NAFSA: Association of International Educators, told :

“We do anticipate that it will happen soon. We know that the administration’s desire is certainly to have [the fixed time limit rule] in place so that it would be effective for students arriving in the United States in the fall. They do have a proposed a 60-day implementation period that has to happen, so working back from that, the very latest we should see the final rule is between the end of May and end of June.”

The webinar was presented by NAFSA, the International Student Resource Center, and the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, and it was devoted to preparing institutions for the impact of the rule change.

What is being replaced?

The D/S system, which allows F and J students an extension on the admission end-date on their I-20 form if their school, college, or university determines they are progressing in their studies. The D/S system recognises that international students need flexibility when it comes to accomplishing their study goals. For example:

• A student begins their journey in an English-intensive programme (IEP) and then progresses to higher education once they have become more proficient in the language;
• A PhD student needs more than four years to finish their programme (which is very common – the average is five to eight years);
• A student completes their degree programme and then progresses to Optional Practical Training (one year) or STEM OPT (three years) to gain work experience.

These are only some of the common and legitimate study pathways offered to international students under D/S.

If a student needs to stay in the US for longer to complete their programme, they apply for an extension to the Designated School Official (DSO) at their institution, who is familiar with the student’s academic progression and performance. The DSO is authorised to make extension decisions by the Department of Homeland Security.

How will the extension process change?

According to the proposal, the DSO will no longer have power to approve the extension request. That will transfer to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officials, and those officials will be permitted to “use discretion” in their decisions. The date students are required to leave the US (with a 30-day grace period) will be entered on their I-94 form, linked to their passport. Students will need to make their case for an extension directly to USCIS.

Other limitations

The proposal also seeks to prohibit international undergraduate students from changing programmes or schools in the first year of their studies and graduate students from doing so at any point. Extensions will not be granted to students wanting to pursue a second degree or qualification if immigration authorities deem that programme to be at the same or lower level than the initial one.

The threat to OPT

When the government takes over the role of education institutions in deciding if a student should have more time to complete their studies, the implications will be massive, especially for students aiming to participate in Optional Practical Training (OPT). The director of USCIS, Joseph Edlow, has indicated he is prepared to restrict access to OPT. In May of 2025 at his , he said:

“What I want to see would be essentially a regulatory and sub-regulatory program that would allow us to remove the ability for employment authorizations for F-1 students beyond the time that they are in school.”

The OPT and STEM OPT post-study work streams are vital to US institutions’ ability to compete for international students (especially those in STEM and at the graduate level). A 2025 survey conducted by NAFSA and  found that 54% of current international students would not have chosen the US if there was no OPT option.

If it becomes too cumbersome, expensive, and uncertain to request an extension for OPT, demand will be extremely affected in the US’s top source of students, India. This is because Indians represent about half of all participants in OPT and STEM OPT.

The implications for graduate programmes

Nearly half of all international students in the US are studying at the master’s or doctoral level. The proposal includes a four-year limit for graduate programmes. Doctoral-level programmes very frequently require more time than this to complete. International student demand for graduate programmes is already down, and it will almost certainly fall further due to the proposal.

Some graduate programmes in STEM could be devastated. According to IIE data, international students account for almost 70% of enrolments in math and computer science programmes and more than half in engineering programmes. In AI-related programmes, 7 in 10 enrolments are international.

Such statistics also illustrate the huge potential of international STEM graduates to contribute to research and innovation in the US economy.

Will current students be affected?

The finalised rule is expected to apply to new students coming into the US in September 2026. Current students wanting to extend their stay beyond their programme end-date will likely need to submit a request to immigration authorities. It is possible there will be a six-month grace period for OPT students after the ruling goes into effect, as long as they do not leave the country.

Why is D/S being replaced?

The government says that the D/S setup cannot adequately address cases of fraud and visa non-compliance by international students and exchange visitors. More broadly, the change is being framed as a way to better protect national security because it will provide more opportunities for DHS to monitor the activities of international students. Students’ end-dates and activities will be more closely integrated into the US visa infrastructure.

In its response to the proposal, NAFSA exposed many holes in the government’s argument – including the lack of data compromising many of its points – and explained how much of the monitoring the DHS wants to do could be accomplished by making tweaks to the SEVIS system upon which D/S relies.

NAFSA has mounted a comprehensive and sector-wide effort to have the government reconsider the end of D/S or at least to significantly reconsider the proposed changes. The association has stated:

“If [the proposal] becomes final, the damage done by this rule will be felt on our campuses and in our communities and will harm our country’s standing in the world.”

The “sea change” ahead

The need for students to file a request for an extension to USCIS will be anything but a procedural switch. As Joann Ng Hartmann, Strategic Initiatives Leader at NAFSA says, it will be a “sea change.”
It will introduce considerable uncertainty for students, for two main reasons:

• At present, USCIS’s processing of immigration requests has never been more backlogged. Adding international students’ requests for extensions to the backlog will only worsen the situation. Many students will face a long wait to see if their extension is approved. 


  
• The granting of extensions will be in the hands of immigration officials at a time when the US government is eager to reduce the flow of foreigners into the country.

In addition, it will cause chaos for schools and colleges, according to Robin Catmur-Smith, Director of Immigration Services in the Office of Global Engagement at the University of Georgia, who was a NAFSA webinar panelist. Institutions will need to change their recruitment messaging, websites, communications, and supports for incoming and current students.

The administration burden – and needed budget – will be extremely high as well for the new compliance and procedural changes ahead. International student departments will in many cases have to be reorganised to advise and track different student profiles (e.g., J students, graduate students, incoming students, OPT students). What’s more, because the final proposal has not yet been published, institutions are in some ways flying blind as they attempt to prepare themselves, recruitment agents, current students, and incoming students for the September 2026 intake.

Where does the government proposal stand now?

The DHS review of comments and objections submitted by tens of thousands of respondents – including universities and peak bodies – is complete and the document is now final. NAFSA announced today that:

“On May 5, 2026, that will eliminate F and J “Duration of Status” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. We expect OMB’s review to be expeditious and for the rule to be published in the Federal Register in the not-too-distant future. The final rule will go into effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Although the text of the final rule will not be available to the public until at least 24 hours before the Federal Register publication date, we surmise that it will retain most if not all of the changes included in the proposed rule.”

Can the rule be challenged?

During the 28 April NAFSA webinar, Andrew Lyonsberg, a partner at McDermott Will & Schulte’s Supreme Court & Appellate Litigation and Government & Regulatory Litigation practice, presented as a panelist. He spoke to the question of whether the fixed time limit rule can be legally challenged.

Mr Lyonsberg, whose practice has successfully appealed past Trump administration immigration rules, says that when the final rule is published, DHS will need to present strong rationale that the need for the change outweighs the “harms” of it to students, institutions, and stakeholders. If not, this will likely clear a path to litigation.

If there is a challenge, it would likely be that the rule should be struck down because it is “arbitrary and capricious.” That legal terminology without a reasonable basis, ignoring relevant facts or logic and often appearing random, unfair, or unsupported by the evidence.

Mr Lyonsberg said that the international education community could prepare to support potential litigation by beginning to document concrete examples of harms the proposal would inflict on students, institutions, staff, and more.

The larger implications

NAFSA states:

“We are in a global competition for talent, as other countries around the world recognize the outsized economic and social benefits of international students and exchange visitors and have implemented policies to create a welcoming environment for these students to thrive.”

“If finalized, the rule will foster tremendous uncertainty for many international students and exchange visitors about whether they will be able to maintain their legal status in the United States through the completion of their studies or program, discouraging students and exchange visitors from coming here, and pushing them to look for opportunities in other countries instead.”

NAFSA also has related to the proposal and its implications, including:

• “Preparing for the final D/S rule. How has your office started to prepare?”
• “Spreadsheet for advising and staffing planning”
• “Presidents’ Alliance Survey: Share how international talent strengthens our communities”

For additional background, please see:

• “What international students need to know about study and work visas in the US”
• “US: Student visa issuances fell by -36% in summer 2025; OPT uncertainty among factors affecting international student demand”

The post US to end “Duration of Status” for F, J, and I visas and limit the time international students can study in the US appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.