Tag: visa

  • Higher Ed Institutions Raise Concerns About H-1B Visa Fee

    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.

    Source link

  • US Chamber sues White House to block ‘plainly unlawful’ H-1B visa fee

    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. 

    Source link

  • Canada: 47k int’l students flagged for potential visa non-compliance

    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 Services

    According 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.

    Source link

  • Indian Students Look Elsewhere After H-1B Visa Price Shock

    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.

    Source link

  • Visa oversubscription at UCL may be more than just a PR problem

    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.

    Source link

  • Trump plans overhaul of H-1B visa favouring high paid workers 

    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. 

    Source link

  • U.K. Weighs Streamlining Visa Process for Researchers

    U.K. Weighs Streamlining Visa Process for Researchers

    The U.K. government has been urged to remove barriers in the visa process for researchers in order to capitalize on new U.S. restrictions imposed by Donald Trump.

    The U.S. president last weekend announced a $100,000 fee for applicants to the H-1B visa program, making a vital visa route used by skilled foreign workers in the U.S. inaccessible to many.

    The U.K. is reportedly considering removing fees for its global talent visa in response. The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) warned that high visa costs are already a significant barrier but said it is not the only change that needs to be made.

    In a new report, CaSE highlights the obstacles presented by the current system, including concerns raised by professionals who handle visa and immigration issues at U.K. research institutions.

    It warns that information about who is eligible for the visa route is often ambiguous and hard to navigate. According to the Wellcome Sanger Institute, which contributed to the report, the language around “exceptional talent” can be intimidating for talented applicants, although many institutions also receive a large number of low-quality applications.

    “These examples point to a wider issue of confusion and unclear messaging about who is eligible, resulting in missed opportunities and cost inefficiencies,” says the report.

    Visa policy is also increasingly complex and can put a significant strain on organizations, according to CaSE.

    The Sainsbury Laboratory (TSL), a research organization that specializes in molecular plant-microbe interactions, said visa support now demands a full-time employee in human resources as well as external support costing more than $21,000 per year in legal fees.

    “The U.K. visa system is becoming increasingly complex, unclear and time-consuming—especially for research institutes like TSL that depend on international talent.

    “Policy changes are poorly communicated, portals outdated and guidance inconsistent, requiring our HR to spend extensive time interpreting information.”

    TSL said that without a fair and functional visa system, the U.K. risks reaching a “breaking point in our ability to attract global talent and sustain world-leading research.”

    Alicia Greated, executive director of CaSE, said U.K. research faces “major challenges” under the current system. She wants to see the government take action that will improve things for skilled workers and those that employ them.

    Greated welcomed reports that the Labour administration was considering reducing visa fees for highly skilled researchers, adding, “If these changes happen, they will put the U.K. in a strong position to compete on the global skills market, especially given the changes in the opposite direction in the U.S.”

    However, she said that the removal of indefinite leave to remain, or permanent residency, from individuals already settled in the U.K.—as Reform UK is advocating—would be extremely damaging to U.K. R&D and the wider economy, as well as individuals and their families.

    “Policy proposals like this also have a negative impact on the attractiveness of the U.K. as a destination for the world’s brightest and best researchers because people may worry their right to be in the country could be taken away.”

    Source link

  • Trump student visa policies pose outsized risk to speciality colleges

    Trump student visa policies pose outsized risk to speciality colleges

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    A loss of international students due to restrictive federal policies could disproportionately harm small private colleges that have specialized focuses or are affiliated with Christian churches, according to a recent report from the Brookings Institution. 

    Many public institutions that charge much higher tuition for international and out-of-state students could also face serious financial hits, said the report’s author, Dick Startz, an economics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

    In his analysis, Startz looked at the common traits of colleges where international students made up at least 30% of enrollment. He found that all of those colleges were private, tended to be small, and have a special focus like business or arts. 

    They were also disproportionately Christian colleges. According to the report, Christian institutions represent 34.3% of colleges and universities where international students comprise more than 30% of total enrollment. 

    “Perhaps the importance of international students to Christian schools should not be so surprising,” the report said. “Many Christian schools are affiliated with evangelical beliefs, spreading their faith globally.”

    Many small private and religious colleges in the U.S. have closed in recent years amid enrollment losses. For such institutions, a sudden loss of 30% of their student population could be a “disaster,” the report warned.

    “The majority of schools will see very little effect,” said Startz. “But there are a small number of schools — private schools that are not very large — and 30% of their budget could disappear. It could be devastating.”

    In June, the U.S. Department of State reopened consular interviews for foreign students looking to apply or renew their student visas after freezing the process the month prior. The State Department, however, now requires those students to unlock their social media accounts so consular officers can review whether they consider their posts hostile to the U.S. or to its culture and founding principles, The Associated Press reported. 

    International students who were previously in the country with active visas are less likely to be affected, said Startz. But first-year students, new graduate students, or some students who need to renew their visas will be impacted, he said. 

    It’s unclear how much those policies will affect international student enrollment or when colleges may start seeing significant impacts, said Startz. But some major colleges and university systems are already beginning to report a major drop in international student enrollment. 

    Over the summer, NASFSA: Association of International Educators projected international enrollment at U.S. colleges could decline by as much as 150,000 students this semester if the federal government did not start ramping up efforts to issue visas. 

    International freshmen enrollment at elite institutions like Princeton University and Columbia University remained steady heading into fall, The New York Times reported. However, other institutions, such as the University at Buffalo, are reportedly experiencing significant declines in international student enrollment, NPR reported. 

    Affecting the economy, affecting colleges

    Volatility in international student levels could affect nearly every college in the country that enrolls foreign students, the Brookings report stated. But not every college — even the ones with large foreign student enrollments — would be affected equally. 

    Colleges such as the University of California, Santa Barbara — where international students make up 9% of enrollment — could face serious financial threats. That’s because those students pay triple the tuition paid by in-state students at UC Santa Barbara, the report stated. 

    Source link

  • What does the K visa mean for China’s search for global talent?

    What does the K visa mean for China’s search for global talent?

    Earlier this month, China’s State Council amended the Regulations on the Administration of the Entry and Exit of Foreigners, highlighting the growing importance of its global talent strategy.

    Effective from October 1, the visa, which will be subject to approval by the authorities of the People’s Republic of China, will be open to international youths who have earned undergraduate or STEM degrees from leading domestic and global research institutions. 

    The visa will also be open to young international professionals engaged in education and research in STEM fields.

    As per reports, compared with ordinary visa categories in China, the K visa is designed to provide greater convenience for holders through multiple entries, longer validity, and extended stay durations.

    We see it as a powerful signal that China is not only open for business but is actively and competitively seeking to attract the world’s best and brightest minds
    Charles Sun, China Education International

    It will also create opportunities for exchanges and collaboration across education, science, technology, culture, business, and entrepreneurship with applications no longer needing sponsorship from a local enterprise, relying instead on the applicant’s age, educational background, and work experience.

    “We see it as a powerful signal that China is not only open for business but is actively and competitively seeking to attract the world’s best and brightest minds,” Charles Sun, founder and managing director of China Education International, told The PIE News.

    “A key attractive feature is the inclusion of provisions for spouses and children. Making it easier for families to relocate together is perhaps one of the most important factors in convincing top-tier talent to make a long-term commitment to a new country.”

    According to data from Studyportals, this move comes at a time when interest in pursuing Artificial Intelligence degrees in the US is declining, while interest in studying the same in China is on the rise.

    “When comparing January to July 2025 to the same period in 2024, relative demand for artificial intelligence degrees (on-campus Bachelor’s and Master’s and PhDs) in the US on Studyportals dropped 25% year-over-year, while interest in AI degrees in China rose 88%,” read a report shared by Studyportals.

    “Both Beijing and Washington are racing to secure technological leadership in the  ‘Race on AI’. According to Harvey Nash “Digital Leadership Report 2025” artificial intelligence has created the world’s biggest and fastest-developing tech skills shortage in over 15 years. This shortage has created a race for talent, with companies like Meta reportedly handing out $100m sign-on bonuses to win top talent.”

    While interest in pursuing such degrees in China is growing amid its global talent push, the US remains a powerhouse in the field.

    International students account for 70% of all full-time graduate enrolments in AI-related programs and make up more than half of all international students in the country enrolled in STEM disciplines.

    “Nations that succeed in drawing the brightest minds and in creating an environment for innovative business to thrive, will not just advance their economies, they will command the future of technology, security, and influence,” stated Edwin Rest, CEO of Studyportals.

    “International students do not only bring revenue to local economies and soft power, they also fuel innovation, startups, and job creation.”  

    Source link

  • US proposes visa time limit rule to end “abuse” of system

    US proposes visa time limit rule to end “abuse” of system

    The proposed rule, announced by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on August 27, would upend the longstanding “duration of status” policy and enforce additional restrictions on students changing programs and institutions.  

    If finalised, the new rule would limit the length of time international students, professors and other visa holders can stay in the US, which DHS claims would curb “visa abuse” and increase the department’s “ability to vet and oversee these individuals”.  

    Trump initially put forward the proposal during his first administration, only for it to be withdrawn under Biden. In recent weeks, a rehashed version of the plans has been moving closer towards final approval.  

    Yesterday’s publication of the finalised proposal in the Federal Register was met with immediate denunciation by stakeholders who say it would place an undue administrative burden on students as well as representing a “dangerous government overreach”. Now the proposal is under a 30-day public comment period.  

    “These changes will only serve to force aspiring students and scholars into a sea of administrative delays at best, and at worst, into unlawful presence status – leaving them vulnerable to punitive actions through no fault of their own,” said NAFSA CEO Fanta Aw.  

    Under the rule, students could only remain in the US on a student visa for a maximum of four years and would have to apply for a DHS extension to stay longer.  

    The policy document reasons that 79% of students in the US are studying undergraduate or master’s degrees which are generally two or four-year programs, thus: “a four-year period of admission would not pose an undue burden to most nonimmigrant students”.  

    And yet, stakeholders have previously pointed out that the average time taken to complete an undergraduate degree – for both domestic and international students – exceeds four years, meaning that the majority of students would have to file for an extension to complete their studies.  

    Meanwhile, this reasoning does not consider postgraduate students on longer programs or the many students that go onto Optional Practical Training (OPT), who would have to apply for a visa extension as well as the work permit itself. 

    If finalised, master’s students would no longer be able to change their program of study, and first year students would be unable to transfer from the institution that issued their visa documents.   

    Alarmingly, the rule would hand power to the government to determine academic progress, with “a student’s repeated inability or unwillingness” to complete their degree, deemed an “unacceptable” reason for program extensions.  

    It would also limit English-language students to a visa period of less than 24 months, and the grace period for F-1 students, post-completion, would be reduced from 60 to 30 days.  

    Such far reaching provisions amount to “a dangerous overreach by government into academia,” said Aw, pointing out that international students and exchange visitors are already “the most closely monitored non-immigrants in the country.”  

    Government interference into the academic realm in this way introduces a wholly unnecessary and new level of uncertainty to international student experience

    Fanta Aw, NAFSA

    “For too long, past administrations have allowed foreign students and other visa holders to remain in the US virtually indefinitely, posing safety risks, costing untold amount of taxpayer dollars, and disadvantaging US citizens,” DHS said in a statement.  

    Framing the issue as one of national security, the department said it had identified 2,100 F-1 visa holders who arrived between 2000 and 2010 and have remained in status, becoming what DHS called “forever” students “taking advantage of US generosity”.  

    Putting this in perspective, commentators have highlighted that in 2023 alone there were 1.6 million F-1 visa holders in the US.  

    As well as imposing significant burdens on students and intruding on academic decision-making, the proposal would also place strain on federal agencies and increase the existing immigration backlog, warned Miriam Feldblum, CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration.

    “International students deserve assurance that their admission period to the US will conform to the requirements of their academic programs,” said Feldblum, issuing a grave warning that the rule would further deter international students and “diminish” US competitiveness.  

    “At a time when the US is already facing declines in international student enrolment, we must do everything we can to keep the door open to these individuals, who are essential to our future prosperity,” she continued, alluding to recent falls in US visa issuance.  

    Since coming to office, a barrage of hostile policies from the Trump administration have erected unprecedented barriers for students hoping to study in the US, with a near-month long visa interview suspension earlier this summer still wreaking havoc on visa appointment availability around the world. 

    The latest government data revealed a 30% drop in student arrivals this July, with colleges bracing for a drastic drop in international student numbers for the upcoming year. If the decline continues, experts have warned of USD $7bn in damages to the US economy.  

    According to Aw, the proposed rule would “certainly” deter international students further, “without any evidence that the changes would solve any of the real problems that exist in our outdated immigration system”. 

    Appealing to Trump’s recent remarks pushing for a more-than doubling of the Chinese student population in the US, Aw urged the government to engage with the sector to ensure the US remained the “premier destination” for global talent while keeping the country “safe and prosperous”. 

    Source link