Australia’s government has increased the immigration risk ratings of several key source countries for international students, reflecting concerns about burgeoning visa fraud in the subcontinent.

The Department of Home Affairs has reinstated India’s level 3 risk rating barely three months after shifting the South Asian giant – Australia’s second top student market – to a more favourable level 2. Nepal, Australia’s third top source market, has also been relegated to level 3 after being upgraded to level 2 a year ago.

Sri Lanka has moved from level 1 to 2 and Bhutan from level 2 to 3. Bangladesh has seen the biggest change, crashing to level 3 only three months after its promotion to level 1.

The risk ratings are normally set in March and September. This month’s adjustment appears to have occurred at the behest of the assistant minister for international education, Julian Hill, who has repeatedly warned about “emerging integrity risks” in student recruitment.

̽����Ƶ

Hill told a November conference that his department had begun “sampling” the paperwork and English language bona fides of South Asian student visa applicants. He flagged a potential “out of cycle” change to risk ratings if new problems emerged.

Data on visa cancellations and refusals, breaches of visa conditions and asylum applications by students are used to calculate the risk ratings. Insiders have warned that these metrics do not reflect the true extent of dodgy behaviour among would-be students, particularly from Bangladesh.

̽����Ƶ

The rating changes oblige immigration officials to check many student visa applications from South Asia for fraudulent claims about the subjects’ financial resources, English language skills and prior academic qualifications. The applicants must provide extra evidence about their financial capacity and language skills unless they are enrolled with institutions carrying level 1 risk ratings.

Phil Honeywood, CEO of the International Education Association of Australia, said Australia had earned a reputation as the “least worst” of the main education destinations – despite its “world’s highest” visa fees and “constant” regulatory changes – as the US, Canada and the UK imposed measures to deter foreign students.

“There’s been increased evidence of fraudulent behaviour to meet Australia’s relatively high entry standards,” Honeywood said.

The Koala News that fraudulent financial documents in South Asian visa applications were becoming increasingly difficult to detect because of local bank officials’ “complicity” and “search fund agents” who helped the students masquerade as wealthier compatriots.

̽����Ƶ

Meanwhile, Australian universities and colleges will be banned from paying commissions to agents who lure foreign students away from local competitors, after Hill formalised arrangements to prevent onshore poaching.

The new rules have been facilitated through last year’s “integrity” bill, which passed parliament in late November, and changes to a on 20 January. They take effect in April.

Institutions will no longer be allowed to pay commissions for the onshore “transfer” of students who have not yet completed the courses specified in their visas. The looming change “removes the incentive for unscrupulous education agents to facilitate unnecessary or non-genuine transfers”, an Education Department explains. “This…will ensure that agents and providers are working in the best interests of their students.”

The fact sheet says commissions can include “any consideration or benefit, whether monetary or non-monetary”. Honeywood said the changes were laudable but their effects were yet to be gauged.

̽����Ƶ

“I never cease to be amazed by how certain agents quickly find workarounds when new restrictions are placed on their operations,” he said. “We’re yet to see how many cash payments, contributions to agent marketing campaigns and other incentives might start to gain traction to replace the traditional high onshore commissions.”

The change does not preclude students themselves from paying commissions to be transferred after an initial six months of study. This has raised concerns that onshore poaching may persist, with agents’ fees borne by students rather than institutions.

̽����Ƶ

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com