The federal government will reward universities that enrol international students in line with allocated numbers under a new visa processing practice to begin in November.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Membership Login
Tag: visa
-
What college leaders should know about the $100K H-1B visa fee
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.President Donald Trump caught the higher education world by surprise on Sept. 19, when he signed a proclamation announcing a new $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. Before the new policy, employers paid between $2,000 and $5,000 for new H-1B petitions, according to the American Immigration Council.
Colleges, especially large research universities, rely on H-1B visas to recruit foreign faculty, scholars and researchers. Stanford University, the University of Michigan and Columbia University all employed over 200 workers through H-1B visas in fiscal 2025.
The new fee could impede colleges’ ability to recruit those workers — potentially curtailing research, slowing scientific innovation and even leading to reduced course offerings for students, according to higher education experts.
“There’s no doubt that it will deter global talent that is not in the U.S.,” Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration. “We lose the benefit of their skills, expertise and talent. It is not only a loss for them, it is just clearly a loss for campuses and other employers.”
Higher education and legal experts are still trying to understand some elements of the new policy, such as if colleges and other employers can secure exemptions to the $100,000 fee for workers they’d like to sponsor. However, they shared insights about who the policy impacts, what could change in the future and how colleges can navigate this moment.
Which workers are impacted by the $100,000 fee?
When the Trump administration first rolled out the policy, confusion abounded about which types of workers would trigger the fee. That’s in part because U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick initially said the fee would be paid annually, according to Reuters.
But a day after the policy’s rollout, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt walked back Lutnick’s remarks and said on social media that it would be a one-time free for new petitions only. Since then, the Trump administration has provided guidance further narrowing the policy’s impact.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration and Services said in October that the fee would not apply to someone already in the U.S. that is requesting a change of status. According to Joshua Wildes, associate attorney at immigration law firm Wildes & Weinberg, that means that students on F-1 and J-1 visas may not be subject to the fee if they are in the U.S. and are seeking to switch to H-1B status.
However, they would have to stay within the U.S. until they secure H-1B status to avoid incurring the fee.
“They’re going to have to decide whether or not they are willing to stay put in the U.S.,” Wildes said. That could include forgoing traveling to see their families or taking vacation outside of the country, Wildes said.
Those who already have H-1B visas, however, can travel outside the U.S. and return without triggering the fee.
Even with the latest guidance, colleges are still reeling from the new policy, as it still applies to new petitions for workers who are outside of the U.S.
No institution wants to pay the fee, “regardless of how small or big you are,” Wildes said. “The smaller ones that don’t have the funds, they simply cannot afford it. The bigger ones that do have the funds, they don’t want to do it because it’s a lot of money.”
The guidance said the U.S. secretary for the Department of Homeland Security could grant exemptions to the fee for certain workers, though it added they will be “extraordinarily rare.”
To qualify, the secretary would have to determine a worker “is in the national interest,” doesn’t pose a security risk to the U.S. and that no American citizen is able to perform the role they would be brought in to fill. The secretary would also have to determine if requiring the new H-1B fee from the sponsoring employer would “significantly undermine” the nation’s interest.
USCIS on Thursday referred Higher Ed Dive to the proclamation and existing guidance when asked for details about which workers would qualify for these exceptions. It added that those requests are handled by DHS and not USCIS.
Will the $100,000 fee stay in place for the higher education sector?
Nearly three dozen higher education organizations, led by the American Council on Education, urged DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in an Oct. 23 letter to carve out a sectorwide exemption to the $100,000 fee for colleges and universities.
In the letter, ACE President Ted Mitchell argued that the H-1B workers do work “crucial to the U.S. economy and national security.” He pointed to their work contributing to research, providing medical care and educating the nation’s students.
“We know that the Trump administration does consider high-skilled immigration to be very important,” said Sarah Spreitzer, ACE’s vice president and chief of staff for government relations. “We are hiring high-skilled faculty, staff and researchers.”
Neither DHS nor the White House answered whether Noem would grant a sectorwide exemption to the fee for colleges and universities.
A White House official contended that foreign workers undercut wages in academia and that the change protects Americans seeking careers in the field.
Even if the sector can’t win a standing exception, the policy could be disrupted by two recent legal challenges.
The first was filed in early October by groups representing the healthcare, K-12, religious and higher education sectors, including the American Association of University Professors. They warned that the new policy could lead to “catastrophic setbacks” to U.S. research and urged a federal judge to declare the $100,000 fee unlawful.
Later that month, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce likewise sued over the policy, arguing it was a “plainful unlawful” expansion of executive authority. The Chamber asked an appeals court to block the fee and vacate any agency actions taken so far to implement it.
What can colleges do now?
Spreitzer noted that the new policy is yet another challenge for colleges attempting to respond to shifting federal policies and predicted the higher education sector’s overall hiring will fall.
“I think that this is just going to be one piece of it,” Spreitzer said.
But higher education and legal experts noted that colleges can take several steps to navigate the new $100,000 fee.
For one, colleges should be proactive if they plan to about seeking exemptions for individuals they want’d like to sponsor for H-1B visas. “Universities need to plan ahead to make those arguments to show that the people that they want to hire are eligible for that exception,” Wildes said.
Legal expertise is required to make those arguments, Wildes added.
“You might only get one bite at the apple,” Wildes said. “Putting together an argument that a foreign worker’s presence in the U.S. is deemed in the national interest is difficult.” Wildes added that colleges need to “give themselves time” to work on those arguments.
Some colleges are also looking at alternatives to the H-1B visa program such as the O visa, which Spreitzer noted is often referred to as the “Einstein visa.”
The O-1A visa is reserved for those with “an extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business, or athletics,” while the O-1B is reserved for those “with an extraordinary ability in the arts” or achievement in the film industry, according to USCISC. Although the O visa is another pathway to bring a worker to the U.S., it has limitations.
“That’s a visa that’s granted for someone that has unique skills that are recognized on a global stage, and they usually have a very high bar to demonstrate that,” Spreitzer said. “You’re not going to be able to hire an early career faculty or researcher under an O visa.”
Meanwhile, Feldblum recommended that colleges engage with their policymakers both at the local and federal level and educate them about the “adverse impact” the fee has on the sector.
“Because if the goal is to spur American economic growth and to support American workers, this doesn’t do it,” Feldblum said.
-
Higher ed groups push for colleges to be exempt from $100K H-1B visa fee
Dive Brief:
- Nearly three dozen higher education organizations are urging U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to exempt colleges from the new $100,000 fee for H-1B visa petitions, arguing in an Oct. 23 letter that these employees do work “crucial to the U.S. economy.”
- President Donald Trump caught the higher education sector by surprise when he announced the large fee last month. Large research universities heavily rely on the H-1B visa program to hire international scholars.
- Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, said in the Thursday letter that colleges’ H-1B workers educate domestic students for “high-demand occupations, conduct essential research, provide critical patient care, and support the core infrastructure of our universities.”
Dive Insight:
Trump shocked the higher ed world sector on Sept. 19 when he declared that new petitions for H-1B visas must come with a $100,000 payment to be processed. Yet colleges were left unsure which of their workers would be impacted amid scant details on the new policy and mixed messages from administration officials. The federal government is facing at least two lawsuits over the fee.
In the days and weeks since the fee was announced, the Trump administration has released additional information about the new policy. Just last week, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services released guidance that said the new fee wouldn’t apply to visa holders inside the country who are requesting a change of status or extension of stay — potentially exempting international students who recently graduated and have H1-B sponsorship.
Mitchell’s letter asked Noem to confirm that the new USCIS guidance includes those on F-1 or J-1 visas — both of which cover international students — converting to H-1B status. He also asked if the government would return the $100,000 fee if a petition is denied and how USCIS would process H-1B applications in a timely manner given the new requirements.
The letter points out that the proclamation included language that allows DHS to issue exemptions for workers if government officials deem hiring them is in the nation’s interest and doesn’t pose a security risk.
“The continuing education of our postsecondary students is in the national interest of the United States,” Mitchell wrote.
He cited recent CUPA-HR data showing that 7 in 10 faculty on H-1B visas in the U.S. are in tenured or tenure-track positions, with the largest shares in business, engineering and health disciplines.
Mitchell contended that exempting colleges from the new fee would be similar to the higher education sector’s current exemption from the cap on H-1B visas, which are awarded via a lottery process. The cap limits annual H-1B visa awards to 65,000 workers, with an additional 20,000 for international students who finished U.S. graduate programs.
Congress exempted higher education from the cap in recognition “of the special role that institutions of higher education play in hiring H-1Bs on our campuses,” Mitchell wrote.
ACE also took issue with a recent proposal that would change how the lottery system works. Under the new proposal from USCIS, visas for higher-wage applicants would be given more priority.
Mitchell urged USCIS to withdraw the rule in a public comment submitted Friday on behalf of ACE and 19 other higher education groups. He argued the change would harm international enrollment, as foreign students entering the workforce after completing their degrees at U.S. institutions would have much lower access to the H-1B visa program.
“A central reason for the excellence of our postsecondary institutions is their ability to attract and enroll talented, motivated, and curious students, whether born in this country or abroad,” Mitchell wrote. “This proposed rule will limit the ability of our institutions to recruit and retain these students, especially those that wish to remain in the United States.”
-
Higher Ed Institutions Raise Concerns About H-1B Visa Fee
In a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, higher ed institutions say maintaining a consistent flow of international faculty and staff members is critical.
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty Images
A number of higher education institutions and the associations that represent them are asking to be exempted from the new $100,000 H-1B visa application fee, saying the prohibitive cost could be detrimental to the recruitment and retention of international faculty, researchers and staff members.
In a letter to the Department of Homeland Security last week, the American Council on Education argued that such individuals “contribute to groundbreaking research, provide medical services to underserved and vulnerable populations … and enable language study, all of which are vital to U.S. national interests.” Without them, ACE and 31 co-signers said, key jobs in high-demand sectors such as health care, information technology, education and finance will likely go unfilled.
The letter came just days after U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services launched a new online payment website and provided an updated statement on policies surrounding the fee. UCIS clarified that the fee will apply to any new H-1B petitions filed on or after Sept. 21, and it must be paid before the petition is filed.
The update also referenced possible “exception[s] from the fee” but said those exceptions would only be granted in an “extraordinarily rare circumstance where the Secretary has determined that a particular alien worker’s presence in the United States as an H-1B worker is in the national interest.”
ACE said that H-1B visa recipients in higher education certainly meet those standards, citing data from the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources that shows that over 70 percent of international employees at colleges and universities hold tenure-track or tenured positions. The top five disciplines they work in are business, engineering, health professions, computer science and physical
sciences.“H-1B visa holders working for institutions of higher education are doing work that is crucial to the U.S. economy and national security,” the letter reads.
Despite the clarification provided by UCIS, ACE still had several remaining questions about the fee. These included whether the $100,000 would be refunded if a petition was denied and whether individuals seeking a “change of status” from an H-1B to an F-1 or J-1 would still be required to pay the fee.
At least two lawsuits have been filed against DHS concerning these visa fees. Neither has been issued a ruling so far.
-
US Chamber sues White House to block ‘plainly unlawful’ H-1B visa fee
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.Dive Brief:
- President Donald Trump’s proclamation placing a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas is a “plainly unlawful” expansion of executive authority that violates the Administrative Procedure Act and federal immigration laws, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce alleged in a lawsuit Thursday.
- Chamber of Commerce v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, et. al. is at least the second such lawsuit against the fee proclamation, following a separate filing earlier this month by plaintiffs in California. The Chamber claimed the fee would “inflict significant harm on American businesses” and render the H-1B program economically unviable for many.
- The Chamber asked the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to enjoin the fee requirement and vacate any agency actions taken to implement it. A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
Dive Insight:
The lawsuit is an immediate follow-up to the Chamber’s statement last month calling on the Trump administration to withdraw its fee proclamation. In that statement, the organization said Trump’s move could impede economic growth as well as domestic job creation by incentivizing employers to move some business functions overseas.
A Chamber press release Thursday reiterated those concerns. Neil Bradley, the organization’s executive vice president and chief policy officer, credited the administration with “securing our nation’s border” while warning of the need for H-1B visas to support growth and attract global talent.
The fee caught employers by surprise when it was announced in September, particularly so for those in the technology sector, where H-1B visas are routinely sought to staff highly-skilled positions in mathematics, computer science and similar fields. But the fee’s effects could be felt in other fields, including higher and K-12 education, plaintiffs in the California lawsuit alleged.
New guidance from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued Monday appeared to give the higher education sector some relief, however. It said that the new fee wouldn’t apply to those who are inside the U.S. and “requesting an amendment, change of status, or extension of stay.” That means international students who recently graduated and have H-1B sponsorship wouldn’t be subject to it, Bloomberg Law reported.
Trump has touted the fee — which applies prospectively only to H-1B visa petitions filed on or after Sept. 21, 2025, — as a necessary measure to combat “systemic abuse” of the program by employers in an effort to artificially suppress wages while reducing job opportunities for U.S. citizens.
The Chamber directly addressed this point in its lawsuit, conceding that while abuse of the H-1B program is a serious issue, Congress considered this problem when creating the program and authorized the executive to take certain measures to prevent and remediate such abuse.
For example, the Chamber noted that Congress twice imposed a temporary $4,000 surcharge fee on certain employers with a high proportion of H-1B visa holders. It also implemented a regulatory framework, the Labor Condition Application, requiring employers seeking H-1B employees to certify that the positions offered to such candidates meet criteria outlined by Congress. The legislature gave the president the authority to enforce such requirements by issuing fines as well as bans on filing future H-1B petitions.
“What Congress did not authorize is disincentivizing the use of the program by imposing a fee many times the amount of fees set by Congress,” the Chamber said.
Separately, the organization echoed an argument used by the California plaintiffs in alleging that the fee is arbitrary and capricious and was not submitted to notice-and-comment rulemaking as required under the APA.
The lawsuits against the fee add to employers’ confusion in the aftermath of the proclamation. Sources previously told HR Dive that businesses have since been left to parse just how to pay the fee or how it will apply to visa petitioners who are already physically present in the U.S.
Editor’s note: Natalie Schwartz, senior editor at Higher Ed Dive, contributed to this story.
-
Canada: 47k int’l students flagged for potential visa non-compliance
Aiesha Zafar, assistant deputy minister for migration integrity at IRCC, told the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that 8% of international students reviewed were potentially “non-compliant”, meaning they were not attending classes as required by the terms of their study visa.
“In terms of the total number of students we asked for compliance information from, that results in potentially 47,175. We have not yet determined whether they are fully non-compliant, these are initial results provided to us by institutions,” stated Zafar, who was questioned by Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner about where these students are currently, if they are not complying with their visa terms.
Determining full non-compliance of the international students, however, is not straightforward, as institutions report data at varying intervals, and students may change schools, graduate, or take authorized leaves.
Zafar noted that IRCC shares all the data it continually collects with the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), which is responsible for locating and removing non-compliant visa holders.
“Any foreign national in Canada would be under the purview of the CBSA, so they have an inland investigation team,” Zafar told the committee when Garner questioned how the IRCC is able to track and remove students who are in violation of their visas.
The 47,000 non-compliance cases are a backlog, evidence that fraud detection is strengthening, not weakening, Canadian standards
Maria Mathai, M.M Advisory ServicesAccording to Maria Mathai, founder of M.M Advisory Services, which supports Canadian universities in the South Asian market, the figure of over 47,000 students who could be non-compliant being portrayed as a “crisis” misses the real story — that Canada’s immigration system is actively adapting.
“Front-end Provincial Attestation Letter (PAL) screening now blocks thousands who would have entered before, and ongoing oversight is catching legacy issues. The 47,000 non-compliance cases are a backlog, evidence that fraud detection is strengthening, not weakening, Canadian standards,” Mathai told The PIE News.
Mathai acknowledged that past PAL allocations contributed to compliance challenges, with regions like Ontario, which hosts the largest share of international students, directing most of its PALs to colleges with higher default rates.
However, the situation is expected to change with IRCC now imposing strict provincial caps on the number of study permits each province can issue.
“By surfacing these imbalances now, the new framework is encouraging provinces and institutions to adapt entry practices based on evidence and learning,” stated Mathai.
Canada’s international student compliance regime, in effect since 2014, was established to identify potentially non-genuine students.
It includes twice-yearly compliance reporting conducted in partnership with Designated Learning Institutions (DLIs), Canadian colleges, institutes, and universities authorised to host international students.
While IRCC’s 2024 report noted no recourse against non-reporting DLIs, new rules now allow such institutions to be suspended for up to a year.
Moreover, Canada’s struggle with international students not showing up for classes is not new, with reports earlier this year indicating nearly 50,000 instances of “no-shows”, international students who failed to enrol at their institutions, in the spring of 2024.
While the “no-show” cohort included 4,279 Chinese students, 3,902 Nigerian students, and 2,712 Ghanaian students, Indian students accounted for the largest share at 19,582. It highlights a broader issue of immigration fraud originating from India, which Zafar identified as one of the top countries for such cases during her September 23 committee testimony.
Over a quarter of international students seeking asylum in Canada also came from India and Nigeria.
According to Pranav Rathi, associate director of international recruitment at Fanshawe College, which hosts one of the largest numbers of Indian students in Ontario, a “rigorous approach” has led to about 20% of Indian applications being declined to ensure only qualified candidates proceed.
“Each application is carefully reviewed, and checked for aggregate scores, backlogs, and authenticity of mark sheets. We keep ourselves updated with the recognised institution list published by UGC,” stated Rathi.
“It is mandatory for a student to provide English language tests approved by IRCC and we also verify English proficiency through IELTS or equivalent test reports to confirm readiness for study in Canada.”
Rathi suggested that one reason Indian students often appear among potentially non-compliant or “no-show” cases is a systemic issue that previously allowed them to change institutions after receiving a study permit.
He added that schools now need to take a more active role, particularly when students apply through education agents.
“Institutions should ensure that their representatives are transparent, well-trained, and follow ethical recruitment practices that align with institutional and regulatory standards,” stated Rathi.
“Ongoing collaboration between institutions and government bodies to monitor market trends and share insights can help build a more transparent and sustainable international education system.”
Many Canadian institutions are now facing headwinds, with course offerings and research funding being cut as Canada’s study permit refusal rate has climbed to its highest level in over a decade.
Canadian politicians have also intensified scrutiny of institutions across the country.
Just days after the IRCC testimony on non-compliant students, a federal committee hearing led by MP Garner saw Conestoga College president John Tibbits questioned on issues ranging from his $600,000 salary to allegations of “juicing foreign student permits” amid growing concerns that healthcare, housing, and jobs that “don’t have capacity” in Ontario.
“Colleges, including Conestoga, have been subject to scrutiny about the role international [students] play in housing, affordability and community pressures. I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm that Conestoga’s approach has always been about service. Our mission has always been to ensure the communities we serve have access to the skilled labour force they need to survive,” stated Tibbits, while addressing the committee on Thursday.
“Looking ahead, we believe this is the time to stabilize the system to build an international student program that is sustainable, fair, globally competitive and focused on Canada’s economic priorities,” he added, as reported by CTV News.
-
Indian Students Look Elsewhere After H-1B Visa Price Shock
The new $100,000 fee for H-1B visas could prove to be the final straw for Indian students’ plans to study in the U.S., with other destinations set to benefit as a result.
The move by the Trump administration—the latest in a long list of restrictions affecting international students—is set to impact Indians the most, given they account for more than 70 percent of H-1B recipients.
Many students enroll in courses with a view to progressing on to the visa, working in industries such as Silicon Valley.
“The sentiment among prospective … students is pretty dismal after this announcement,” said Sonya Singh, founder of SIEC, an education consultancy.
“The queries and applications for U.S. universities have seen a significant drop, and students are considering alternatives. Destinations such as the U.K., Germany and Australia are being explored, and Canada is proposing a dedicated work permit for current and potential U.S. H-1B holders. All these initiatives and policy changes are sure to bring about a massive shift in demand for the U.S. as a destination.”
Sagar Bahadur, executive director for Asia at international education consultancy Acumen, said the debate has created “a lot of talk, anxiety and perception-building” among prospective students.
He noted that students are increasingly deferring study plans, exploring alternative destinations or considering “transnational pathways” that allow them to start degrees elsewhere before moving to the U.S. if conditions improve.
Pankaj Mittal, secretary general of the Association of Indian Universities, said the fee hike was “shaking things up for Indian students eyeing the U.S. for education and careers.”
With uncertain job prospects and shifting policies, she argued, parents may no longer be willing to pay high tuition fees.
“Countries like Germany, Canada, Australia, U.K., Singapore and Malaysia may gain traction due to stable policies, work opportunities and affordability,” Mittal said, highlighting Germany’s free or low-cost tuition and work allowances as a growing draw for Indian students.
She also warned of wider repercussions for international collaboration. “This decision may impact partnerships with U.S. institutions as Indian universities explore alternatives and strengthen ties with European, Canadian or Australian institutions. STEM and health-care sectors may be particularly affected due to high H-1B dependency.”
Early signs of a shift are already emerging. Narender Thakur of the University of Delhi noted declining interest in short U.S. master’s courses in computing and engineering, fields closely tied to H-1B pathways.
He suggested that students may increasingly consider other global destinations or branch campuses in India, while research partnerships with U.S. institutions could slow. Opportunities in entrepreneurship and remote work may also appeal to students deterred from U.S. employment.
Andrew Morran, head of politics and international relations at London Metropolitan University, said the policy would “particularly hit Indian students, who last year made up 71 percent of international student applications, according to U.S. government statistics.”
He described the move as part of a broader trend restricting access to U.S. universities and warned it could make study in the U.S. “even more the preserve of the elite and the wealthy” while undermining classroom diversity.
“It will also impact the student experience, as diversity is undermined and the shared experience of a global classroom is weakened further,” Morran said. Universities might seek students elsewhere, he added, but the hostile political climate and attacks on immigration could blunt recruitment.
“Talent gaps cannot be filled overnight. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will take every opportunity it has to steal these students,” he said.
-
Visa oversubscription at UCL may be more than just a PR problem
Richard Adams’ reporting for the Guardian sets out the immediate fallout.
Hundreds of international students, including around 200 from China, are stranded after UCL admitted it had run out of Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) allocations.
The Guardian reports that many have already spent thousands on flights and accommodation – others are already in the UK and now face deportation.
Comments like this one on Reddit illustrate the issue:
On September 22nd, I suddenly received a notice from UCL, telling me that the issuance of CAS had been suspended… the only option they’ve given is to defer my enrolment to 2026. I’ve already rented a flat and the money is non-refundable.
The reputational damage may spread from UCL. A YouTube video entitled “UK university cancels CAS letters” lists causes like overbooking and compliance checks without actually mentioning UCL. And a look at Chinese-language spaces suggests that story has gone semi viral – re-told and amplified with screenshots said to be from affected cohorts.
UCL told us that it’s urgently working with the Home Office to secure additional CAS numbers and is doing everything it can to resolve this as quickly as possible:
In the meantime, we are contacting affected students directly to explain the situation, offer our sincere apologies, and provide support including the option to defer their place to next year.
The short-term picture is reputational damage and urgent negotiations with the Home Office. But potentially, the longer-term problem is consumer law – and the conflicting risks and incentives that our immigration regime and the consumer protection regime creates.
Push me pull you
Universities, of course, have to apply to the Home Office for CAS (Confirmation of Acceptance for Study) numbers. The number allocated is based on how many international students each university expects to admit.
They have to aim to be as accurate as possible – they’re not permitted to significantly over-estimate these figures as a precaution. The problem this year for UCL is as follows:
We’ve experienced significantly more applications and acceptances of offers than anticipated, and as a result, we have exceeded the number of Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) numbers allocated to us by the Home Office. Our planning is based on historical data and expected trends which take account of attrition rates and other factors.
For all universities, the numbers are always estimates. This is because, in any one year, more offer holders than expected may accept their place, or more students may meet the academic requirements than in previous years – both of which increase demand for CAS allocations.
The question then is how to manage the risks – not least because as well as worries about over-recruiting, as per the Legal Migration white paper, UKVI will soon be demanding a visa refusal rate of less than 10 per cent and a course enrolment rate of at least 90 per cent of CASs issued.
UUKi’s advice on that looks like this:
Universities may wish to consider reviewing their deposit requirements alongside their diversification plans to help ensure applicants are genuine students and intent on studying. This could include introducing or increasing deposits or introducing earlier deposit deadlines.
It’s not hard to see how immigration policy pushes universities towards locking students in once they apply, and then having to take steps to limit the impact if a surprising number then accept and/or meet any offer made.
The problem is that those steps may not be compatible with protections students are supposed to have. In other words, it may not be quite as simple as it looks to transfer the risks being loaded onto universities onto students.
CMA’s earlier warnings
You may remember that after the pandemic admissions crunch caused by those mutant algorithms, the CMA issued specific advice reminding universities that:
Universities and colleges should not make binding offers which they know they may not be able to honour, and should avoid terms which allow them wide discretion to withdraw offers once accepted.
Then in updated CMA guidance to universities in 2023, the same themes recur:
Institutions must provide prospective students with clear, accurate, comprehensive, unambiguous and timely information about courses, teaching, teaching locations and any limiting conditions.
And echoing its Statement on Admissions, the guidance stresses that terms allowing a university excessive discretion to withdraw or change the service must be fair:
HE providers should not use terms which allow wide discretion to vary or cancel aspects of the educational service after an offer has been accepted, or to limit or exclude liability for failure to provide what was promised.
Non-refundable deposits
Like most universities, UCL’s Tuition Fee Deposits Policy 2025 says deposits are:
…typically non-refundable if the offer-holder simply chooses not to enrol or is unable to enrol for reasons within their control.
Refund routes are narrow – visa refusal, academic failure, programme cancellation, scholarship funding – and discretionary. Refunds may also be reduced by bank charges or currency fluctuations.
The CMA’s unfair terms guidance (CMA37) says that deposits must reflect a trader’s pre-estimate of the loss, not operate as punitive lock-ins.
Paragraph 5.14 warns that forcing consumers to forfeit prepayments:
…is open to serious objection where it bears no relation to the business’s actual costs.
Where universities use deposits to insure against under-recruitment, the price is often borne by students – in ways consumer law regards as unfair.
UCL told us that:
Tuition Fee Deposits are not intended to deter withdrawals and represent a genuine estimate of the loss suffered where an individual doesn’t enrol. UCL specifically sets out that Tuition Fee Deposits aren’t non-refundable in all circumstances.
Acts of god
Meanwhile, UCL’s terms and conditions allow it to cancel programmes and treat “under or over demand for courses or modules” as an “event outside our control.”
In the undergraduate version, Section 15 lists over or under-subscription alongside things like government restrictions and industrial action as circumstances for which UCL “will not be responsible or liable for failure to perform.”
And under Section 5, UCL may withdraw or cancel a programme and will then “use commercially reasonable endeavours” to offer a suitable alternative or permit withdrawal.
The CMA’s HE consumer law advice is explicit that providers must not draft broad discretionary rights to withdraw courses after offers have been accepted. Terms must be narrow, transparent, and balanced – and force majeure cannot be used to cover risks the provider should reasonably plan for.
In what appears to be the CMA’s view, oversubscription is not an act of God – it’s a business choice.
UCL’s terms also cap its liability for breach of contract at twice the tuition fee, and exclude responsibility for consequential losses – including travel, accommodation, and visa fees.
But under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, suppliers can’t exclude liability for foreseeable losses arising from their own breach – and the CMA warns against blanket exclusions of precisely these losses.
If students have rented expensive private halls or bought non-refundable flights on the strength of UCL’s assurances, those look potentially like foreseeable losses. Trying to exclude them may not survive scrutiny under the fairness test.
The university told us that:
UCL does not seek to limit or exclude liability that it cannot lawfully limit or exclude and accepts a fair and reasonable allocation of liability in the terms.
The exacerbating issue is that evidence on student forums appears to show that UCL knew weeks before the term that there could be a capacity issue.
UCL states that first-year undergraduates who meet the published criteria – such as applying by the deadline and firmly accepting their offer – are “guaranteed” a place in UCL accommodation.
But posts on student forums suggest that by early September some applicants were being told the guarantee had effectively become a “priority” allocation because of high demand, leaving students scrambling for private halls after cheaper options had gone.
It means that many are now locked into costly private housing contracts, without a contractual route to compensation because the contract expressly excludes accommodation losses.
The university’s UG terms say:
UCL does not accept any liability for loss that does not flow naturally from a breach of its obligations under these Terms. This is often referred to as indirect or consequential loss. In addition, particular types of loss that UCL does not accept liability for, whether direct or indirect and whether considered a possibility at the time the contractual relationship came into effect, are loss of earnings (including delay in receipt of potential earnings), loss of opportunity, loss of profit and loss of your data.
That could also be a classic example of an unfair exclusion clause under the Consumer Rights Act.
All of this lands at a time when UCL is, as a first target in a likely series of claims, already preparing to defend itself in the High Court against claims from students over pandemic and strike disruption. That trial, due to begin in early 2026, may test amongst other things whether the “force majeure” clauses that universities have relied on to exclude liability are enforceable at all.
The CMA has long said that force majeure clauses covering a university’s own staff strikes are likely unlawful, and OfS has echoed concerns in its guidance. In UCL’s case, the test claims may explore whether something truly uncontrollable in March 2020 became predictable – and therefore compensable – over time.
That context matters because UCL’s oversubscription response leans on similar legal logic – that over-demand is “outside its control” and liability for students’ losses is capped. Regulators, adjudicators and courts could now be asked whether these contract clauses are actually fair.
A risky model
Recruiting large numbers of international students is inherently volatile. Visa policies change, attrition rates fluctuate, and global demand can surge unexpectedly. But while the business model may be risky, in theory the law prevents the transfer of that risk onto students via hefty deposits, discretionary refunds, cancellation rights or liability caps.
In other words, an airline can take the risk of overbooking a flight – but if it does, you have the right to compensation – as well as a choice between a refund or an alternative flight.
In many ways, UKVI and Home Office policy pushes universities towards the sorts of risk management practices that consumer law was designed to rule out.
But the problem may not only be universities sometimes over-recruit. It may be that they do so on terms that attempt to ensure they are protected, while students are not.
It’s not yet clear whether UCL is committing to compensation – or seeking to rely on the terms that would, on the face of it, allow it to avoid compensating.
But if the pandemic/strikes litigation establishes that universities cannot contract away responsibility with sweeping force majeure clauses, oversubscription could become the next flashpoint in regulation and the courts – with real implications across the sector.
======
A UCL spokesperson said:
This year, UCL has seen an extraordinary surge in demand from international students, a reflection of our global reputation and the value students place on a UCL education.
We’ve experienced significantly more applications and acceptances of offers than anticipated, and as a result, we have exceeded the number of Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) numbers allocated to us by the Home Office. Our planning is based on historical data and expected trends which take account of attrition rates and other factors.
We are urgently working with the Home Office to secure additional CAS numbers and are doing everything we can to resolve this as quickly as possible. In the meantime, we are contacting affected students directly to explain the situation, offer our sincere apologies, and provide support including the option to defer their place to next year.
We also recognise that some of our recent communications have caused confusion and uncertainty, and we are sincerely sorry for that. We are committed to supporting every student impacted by this and are grateful for their patience and understanding as we work to find a solution.
An Office for Students spokesperson said:
All registered universities and colleges must show that they’ve given due regard to CMA guidance about how to comply with consumer protection law in developing and implementing their policies, procedures, and terms and conditions. Students invest a significant amount of time and money in their studies and it’s important that their consumer rights are protected when making this investment.
-
Trump plans overhaul of H-1B visa favouring high paid workers
The notice, published in the Federal Register on September 24, proposes an overhaul of the H-1B visa process to establish a “weighted selection process” favouring “higher skilled and higher paid” workers.
If finalised, the proposal would give greater odds of selection to workers with higher wages, if the number of applicants exceeds the 85,000-limit set by Congress, which has been the case every year for over a decade. The system would replace the current lottery selection process.
The changes – initially put forward for White House review in July – follow a major hike in the H-1B visa fee to $100,000 announced last week, triggering widespread panic among US companies and prospective foreign employees.
Prior to the announcement, employers typically paid between $2,000 to $5,000 for H-1B visa applications, with Trump claiming the increase would put an end to employers “abusing” the system by hiring foreign workers at a “significant discount” in comparison to American workers.
As per yesterday’s proposal, prospective employees would be assigned to four wage bands, with applicants in the top band (level four) placed into the selection pool four times, those in level three entered three times, and so on.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has said the process would “incentivise employers to offer higher wages or higher skilled position to H-1B workers and disincentivise the existing widespread use of the H-1B program to fill lower paid or lower skilled positions”.
The department said it “recognised the value” in maintaining opportunities for lower wage earners and maintained they would not be precluded from the visa, unlike the Trump’s 2021 proposal which “left little or no opportunity” for lower earners.
But critics argue the proposed weighted system will harm US employers’ ability to build international knowledge and fill jobs.
“By favouring more experienced foreign workers and reducing the number of new job entrants, US companies will find themselves struggling to grow,” Intead CEO Ben Waxman told The PIE News.
The plans now face a 30-day public comment period before they are considered by the administration for a final rule, a process that could take several months.
Extensive feedback to government from US businesses on how the proposal would damage US competitiveness is widely expected, with experts also anticipating possible court challenges against the legislation.
Early reports from Bloomberg have suggested the US Chamber of Commerce has begun polling member companies about a potential lawsuit to challenge the $100,000 fee hike.
DHS itself has estimated that 5,200 small businesses currently employing H-1B visa holders would suffer significant damages due to loss of labour.
“There simply are not enough American computer science graduates to support the decades-long record of US innovation and economic growth. That is the wonder of the US tech sector,” said Waxman.
“Why would the US government want to constrain that engine?” he asked.
With analysis by the Chamber of Commerce forecasting a continued decline in the US labour force participation by 2030, advocacy bodies such as IIE have emphasised the importance of international students to fill gaps in labour markets across the country.
There simply are not enough American computer science graduates to support the decades-long record of US innovation and economic growth
Ben Waxman, Intead
The visa, popular with tech companies, enables US employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in “specialty occupations” spanning a wide range of industries from healthcare and teaching to computer science and financial analysis.
Under the current system, there is a statutory annual cap of 85,000 new H-1B visas: 65,00 for regular H-1B visas and 20,000 for individuals with advanced degrees from US institutions known as the master’s cap.
Each year, US employers submit registrations to USCIS for each worker they want to sponsor for a visa. Typically, this number exceeds the cap, in which case, applicants are placed into a random lottery which determines who is awarded a visa.
Since 2012, 60% or more of H-1B workers have held a computer-related job.
Amazon remains the single largest sponsor, with 10,000 out of its total 1.56 million employees holding H-1B visas. Microsoft, Apple and Meta have also expanded foreign hiring through this stream in recent years, according to Newsweek analysis of new federal data.
Commentators have already warned that if the new structure is implemented, the US tech sector will ramp up offshoring facilities and jobs. “Not the outcome anyone in the US wants,” said Waxman.
The visa program has been the subject of much debate in recent months, with Elon Musk, himself once an H-1B worker, coming out in defence of the visa against calls for its abolition from some MAGA hardliners who argued it allowed firms to suppress wages and sidelines American workers.
Denial rates for H-1B visas peaked at 15% during Trump’s first administration due to stricter immigration rules and the tightening of the definition of “specialty occupations”.
India, America’s largest source of international students, is also the top country of origin for H-1B visa holders, with Indian nationals making up 73% of new H-1B approvals in 2023.
China was the second-most common birthplace of H-1B workers, accounting for 12% of skilled workers approved in 2023, while no other birthplace accounted for more than 2% of the total.
