Tag: scrap

  • Virginia Agrees to Scrap In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students

    Virginia Agrees to Scrap In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students

    Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Justice Department has sued seven states to challenge their tuition policies for undocumented students.

    Andrew Harnik/Getty Images News/Getty Images

    With just over two weeks left in office, Republican Virginia attorney general Jason Miyares agreed with the federal Justice Department that a 2020 law granting in-state tuition to undocumented students is unconstitutional.

    In a joint court filing, Miyares and lawyers for the Justice Department asked a federal judge to declare the Virginia Dream Act invalid and bar state authorities from enforcing it. If approved, the joint consent decree order would make Virginia the fourth state to scrap its policies that allow eligible undocumented students to pay the lower in-state tuition rate. The joint agreement came just one day after the Trump administration sued Virginia over its in-state tuition policies—the seventh such lawsuit.

    In response to these challenges, some states have fought the Justice Department, while several Republican-led states quickly agreed to stop offering undocumented students in-state tuition. The rapid change in policies spurred confusion and chaos for students as they scrambled to find ways to pay for their education. Some advocacy groups have sought to join the lawsuits to challenge the Justice Department.

    Miyares, who lost his re-election bid to Democrat Jay Jones in November, wrote on social media that it’s clear that the 2020 statute “is preempted by federal law.”

    “Illegal immigrants cannot be given benefits that are not available to American citizens,” he wrote. “Rewarding noncitizens with the privilege of in-state tuition is wrong and only further incentivizes illegal immigration. I have always said I will call balls and strikes, and I am proud to play a part in ending this unlawful program.”

    Trump lawyers argued in the Virginia lawsuit and elsewhere that such policies discriminate against U.S. citizens because out-of-state students aren’t eligible for in-state tuition. In Virginia, undocumented students can qualify for the reduced rate if they graduated from a state high school and if they or their parents filed Virginia income tax returns for at least two years before they enroll at a postsecondary institution.

    Jones, the incoming Democratic attorney general, criticized the administration’s lawsuit as “an attack on our students and a deliberate attempt to beat the clock to prevent a new administration from defending them.” He added that his team is reviewing their legal options.

    In the meantime, the Dream Project, a Virginia nonprofit that supports undocumented students, is seeking to intervene in the lawsuit and has asked the court to delay its consideration of the proposed order. An estimated 13,000 undocumented students were enrolled in Virginia colleges and universities in 2018, according to the filing.

    The Dream Project argued in its filing that it and the students it serves would be harmed if the Virginia Dream Act is overturned and that the court should hear a defense of the law.

    “The motion by the Trump administration was deliberately filed over a holiday in the dead of night without briefing, without public scrutiny, and without hearing from our scholars and families who would be impacted by this judgment,” Dream Project executive director Zuraya Tapia-Hadley said in a news release. “The state and federal administrations are attempting to re-legislate and set aside the will of the people. If we don’t intervene, that essentially opens the door for settled law to be thrown out with the wave of a pen via a judgment.”

    Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said he’s hopeful that the judge, Robert Payne, will grant the motion for intervention, noting that he “is a stickler for proper procedures.”

    “There’s a basic premise that there should be two sides to every litigation, and there aren’t two sides in this litigation,” he said, adding that if the judge does approve the consent decree, the General Assembly could always put a law similar to the Virginia Dream Act back in place.

    To Tobias, the legislation is constitutional and should withstand a legal challenge.

    “This administration has a very different view of what the Constitution requires, so they can make their arguments,” he said. “But they shouldn’t be making them in a vacuum without hearing the other side.”

    Source link

  • 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