Tag: eases

  • Australia eases risk ratings amid calls to scrap system

    Australia eases risk ratings amid calls to scrap system

    According to reports, a brief note issued by the Department of Home Affairs through the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS), which oversees international student data, confirms that evidence levels have been updated.

    “The September 2025 evidence level update for countries and education providers (based on student visa outcome data from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025) has taken place, effective for applications lodged on or after 30 September 2025,” read a statement by the DHA on the PRISMS website.

    Consultants and universities in Australia are able to work out these levels through the government’s document checklist tool, which reveals a provider’s risk standing based on the requirements triggered when paired with a student’s country of origin.

    Reports suggest that level 1 (lowest risk) includes Bangladesh and Sri Lanka; level 2 (moderate risk) includes India, Bhutan, Vietnam, China, and Nepal; and level 3 (highest risk) includes Fiji, the Philippines, Pakistan, and Colombia.

    Although India and Vietnam, both prominent source markets for Australia, improved from level 3 to level 2 on the back of stronger grant rates, China slipped from level 1 to level 2, possibly due to a surge in asylum applications from Chinese nationals, particularly students, as some reports suggest.

    While education providers in Australia registered under CRICOS (Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students) are assigned an evidence level, each country is also given one based on its past performance with student visas, particularly visa refusals, asylum applications, and breaches of conditions.

    Are there not more Indians applying for protection visas? Hasn’t Nepal followed Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in political turmoil, where the economy has suffered? This has raised concerns around students meeting GS requirements
    Ravi Lochan Singh, Global Reach

    The combination of provider and country levels determines the documents required for an international student’s visa application.

    Stakeholders have highlighted the lack of transparency in assessing country risk levels, particularly as students from countries with reduced risk ratings may still arrive in Australia under precarious conditions.

    “Are there not more Indians applying for protection visas? Hasn’t Nepal followed Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in political turmoil, where the economy has suffered? This has raised concerns around students meeting GS requirements. There are also whispers that certain operators may encourage students to apply for protection visas,” stated Ravi Lochan Singh, managing director, Global Reach.

    Visa prioritisation is already tied to intended caps, with applications processed on a first-in, first-out basis until a provider reaches 80% of its allocation, explained Singh.

    With almost all universities now streamlined for visas and the majority promoted from level 2 to level 1, lowest risk, and almost none remaining in level 3, the evidence-level system appears unnecessary to some.

    “The concept of ‘streamlining’ (and then the development later of the SSVF) took place at a time where there was a whole-of-government focus on growing international student numbers and increasing the value, while maintaining integrity, of the highly important international education sector,” shared Mike Ferguson, pro vice-chancellor of Charles Sturt University.

    According to Ferguson, a former DHA official, “English and financial requirements were streamlined as part of the visa process, based on a risk assessment, given the other safeguards in place – obligations enforced by TEQSA and ASQA in terms of providers ensuring students have sufficient English proficiency and the use of the GTE requirement to consider a student’s holistic economic circumstances.”

    However, with international student numbers rising since the early 2010s, “times have changed” and the focus has shifted to managing enrolments and ensuring sustainable growth, explained Ferguson.

    “My view is that all students should provide evidence of funds and English with the visa process. That would align with community expectations, support enhanced integrity and potentially help to some degree with some of the course hopping behaviour we are seeing (though the latter requires a range of measures),” he contineud.

    “DHA could still determine the degree to which they scrutinise the funds submitted but that would be based on a more holistic and granular risk assessment – not just based on country and provider.”

    Evidence levels of select Australian institutions, showing whether they have remained steady, been upgraded, or downgraded, as shared by Ravi Lochan Singh. Correction: Deakin University was previously categorized under risk level 2 (not 1) and has since been upgraded to 1.

    Singh further stated that concerns around visa hopping and attrition could be exacerbated, as international students may now enter Australia through universities and then transition to higher-risk, non-university sectors without needing new visa applications, especially since Australia has yet to mandate linking study visas to the institution of initial enrolment, unlike neighbouring New Zealand.

    Moreover, Singh pointed out that when students arrive without adequate financial backing, it can increase visa misuse, which may lead authorities to tighten risk classifications again.

    “The document checklist tool provides a clear framework for assessing the risk level of a university. However, it raises concerns about the recent trend of promoting the application of visas without financial funds, as suggested by the document checklist tools. While these visas may be approved, this approach could potentially lead to the return of the country to risk level 3 in the future,” stated Singh.

    “For instance, if a country’s risk level is 3 (such as Pakistan), and Home Affairs requires financial and English requirements to be attached to the visa application, the university’s risk level is inferred to be 2. If the Home Affairs tool waives this requirement, the risk level is reduced to 1.”

    The PIE has requested comment from the DHA and is awaiting a response.

    Australia’s reported changes to country evidence levels come just a month after the government announced an additional 25,000 international student places for next year, raising the cap to 295,000.

    Source link

  • Salt Lake City eases off crackdown on salty speech after FIRE steps in

    Salt Lake City eases off crackdown on salty speech after FIRE steps in

    This month marks one year since Salt Lake City clocked possibly the shortest public comment in city council history when police removed activist Jenna Martin after only 20 seconds of speaking that began, “What the hell is wrong with you?”

    Martin, who was wearing a keffiyeh pinned in the front like a shawl, then accused Mayor Erin Mendenhall of having police arrest local pro-Palestinian activist Michael Valentine on multiple occasions for “the most bullshit reasons.” 

    The council promptly ejected Martin, who could hardly be described as causing any type of disturbance given that she only had the floor for 20 seconds and her comments were entirely relevant to matters of public concern. But apparently, the council did not like people cursing in front of the mayor. 

    On Aug. 14, 2024, FIRE wrote the council, explaining that the First Amendment protects the public’s right to comment on matters related to the city and its leaders, even if the commentary is less than “respectful,” so long as the speaker is not disrupting the meeting. Pointed criticism is not the same as disruption.

    Mandating respectful discourse is an example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination because the city is sure to enforce the rule only against criticism, not praise. It’s also vague because what qualifies as “respectful” is undefined, constitutes a matter of opinion, and falls to the complete discretion of the same elected officials who are often the subject of that very criticism. The law recognizes that you cannot have the fox guarding the hen house.

    Although not pertinent to Martin’s case, FIRE also warned the council that its unqualified ban on “discriminatory” language is unconstitutional for the same reasons. After FIRE sent  a second letter on Oct. 7, a city attorney acknowledged the council had no basis to eject Martin, confirmed the policy had been revised to comply with the First Amendment, and noted that the city implemented “First Amendment training after receiving FIRE’s notice and plans to continue to reinforce that training.”

    Instead of vague and viewpoint-discriminatory categorical prohibitions on speech, the policy now encourages speakers to “avoid … intimidating or discriminatory language,” “profanity,” “threats,” and “personal attacks.” The policy also now explicitly acknowledges that speakers have free speech rights that the council cannot infringe upon: 

    The Council respects constitutional rights to free speech. It recognizes that some comments may be legally permissible under the U.S. and Utah Constitutions or other federal and state laws. However, the Council reserves the right to address behavior that creates disruption or safety risk or constitutes unprotected speech (such as true threats).

    Salt Lake City’s previous decorum policy highlights a common misconception among elected officials across the country regarding the contours of the First Amendment. While they may encourage the public to be respectful, they absolutely cannot censor or eject a speaker on these grounds. The mere use of profanity does not justify censorship either. FIRE will watch to ensure the city actually enforces the new policy in line with the First Amendment.

    Salt Lake City Council meetings are, at minimum, limited public forums. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that in limited public forums, towns can restrict speech only in a reasonable and viewpoint-neutral manner. For instance, Salt Lake City can decide when the public may speak, and may require comments to be relevant to city affairs — but it cannot cut off the public simply for using profanity or accusing the mayor of an abuse of power. 

    The First Amendment protects not just the content of speech but also the tone and intensity of that speech — an essential part of how people communicate opinions and ideas.

    If Martin can’t hold the mayor accountable for a perceived abuse of authority at a city meeting, where can she voice her grievances? City meetings are supposed to encourage civic engagement and inform the public. Yet FIRE has had to repeatedly hold local government officials accountable for censoring public comments beyond constitutional bounds. Fortunately, we’ve recently secured a couple victories on that front. 

    We commend Salt Lake City for taking corrective action and realizing that salty speech is not a threat to democracy, but a sign of its good health.

    FIRE defends the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — no matter their views. FIRE’s proven approach to advocacy has vindicated the rights of thousands of Americans through targeted media campaigns, correspondence with officials, open records requests, litigation, and other advocacy tactics. If you think your rights have been violated, submit your case to FIRE today.

    Source link