The rising number of study visa refusals involving applicants seeking to continue Australian programs in Australia or pursue courses also available in their home country has left sector sources questioning the increased use of a reasoning they say has long been standard.
Although many had hoped international students would be spared broader immigration changes, the Australian government recently tightened measures, including passing an integrity bill targeting ‘unscrupulous’ agents, criticised by some for being enacted with minimal debate, and assigning higher risk ratings to several South Asian countries.
The policy moves come as assistant minister for international education Julian Hill stresses the need to maintain quality in the sector, ensure students are genuinely eligible, and curb malpractice among agents.
They follow strong growth in lodgments between October and December last year from markets like Bangladesh and Nepal, after risk levels for several South Asian countries were reduced in September 2025 and 2026 NOSC limits were raised, allowing most public universities to exceed their usual allocations.
The relaxations, which may have encouraged aggressive recruitment from South Asian countries and ran counter to the government’s push to deepen engagement with Southeast Asia, likely contributed to sharp drops in visa approval rates for Bangladesh, Nepal, and India, falling from above 90% to around 50-70% by December.
The drops, seen as a “correction” after September policy changes, directed at a few markets, reflect increased use of the long-standing line that rejections occur because “comparable courses are widely available in the applicant’s home country”, raising concern among Australian providers.
“This is something that has been quoted by visa refusals for several years but seems to be increasing in frequency with large numbers of generic cut and paste visa refusals being seen,” a senior Australian university official told The PIE News, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“What is not clear is why the issue of a similar course in the home country is of concern for some students but not others. There appears to be very inconsistent application of this clause, and at the current time, almost an arbitrary feel to visa decision making for South Asian students.”
The renewed use of the home-clause rule follows Hill’s recent visit to India, where he praised Indian students’ quality but raised worries about agent practices and fraud, “with some regions still reporting high numbers of fraudulent or unverifiable documents driving rejections”.
Moreover, reports suggest applicants from countries like Sri Lanka are facing rising rejections, with approval rates dropping from 94% in 2024/25 to 90.3% in 2025/26, partly due to the perception that studying at home is easier, even as three Australian universities open or plan campuses there.
Sector insiders, however, say this is routine and not specifically related to the transnational education shift in the country.
“It has been the case for some time now, and I cannot call it a surge in such statements in refusal notifications. Sri Lanka has moved from AL2 to AL1 and back to AL2; irrespective of this, we have seen refusals citing the options applicants have in-country to complete the course,” stated David Samuel, director and CEO, Business Advisory Group Private Limited.
Furthermore, the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) stated that these refusals reflect standard migration criteria, indicating that TNE opportunities in an applicant’s home country would not, in themselves, be a determining factor for officials.
“In considering the circumstances of applicants in their home country or country of residence, the Department considers reasons for not studying in an applicant’s home country, country of residence or region if a similar course is available there; the applicant’s personal ties to their home country or country of residence; the applicant’s economic circumstances; and political and civil unrest and military service commitments in the applicant’s home country or country of residence,” stated a DHA spokesperson.
“The Department encourages applicants to include in their application as part of evidence and information about their circumstances reasons for not studying in their home country or country of residence if a similar course is available.”
These apparently subjective refusals remain one of the most frustrating and challenging parts of student mobility
Neil Fitzroy, Oxford International Education Group
While the spokesperson stated that study visa applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis, experts say refusals targeting students with access to similar courses in their home countries have fueled broader frustration over seemingly subjective decisions.
“These apparently subjective refusals remain one of the most frustrating and challenging parts of student mobility – particularly when similar student profiles were granted visas only a month or two ago, and there has been no stated change in requirements,” said Neil Fitzroy, managing director, Australasia, Oxford International Education Group.
With study visa application fees now at AUD$2,000 and appeals to the Administrative Review Tribunal costing AUD$3,580, despite over 50,000 cases pending and no appeal rights for offshore applicants, Fitzroy argues the refusal reasoning is unfair to students.
“It is unconscionable, particularly now given the non-refundable AUSD$2000 application fee, that prospective students who appear to have fulfilled criteria from the provider and Home Affairs are subject to such high levels of visa refusals,” he stated.
Some, like Samuel, believe that any student, even in countries like Sri Lanka where many onshore opportunities exist, should be able to study in Australia if they meet all academic and visa requirements but do not consider it a “crackdown” by the Australian government.
“I wouldn’t call it a ‘crackdown on international students by the Australian government.’ It is simply how any government or its agencies evaluate a visa application,” stated Samuel.
“Universities make offers based on many factors, including meeting minimum entry requirements. However, the outcome ultimately depends on how the case officer assesses and judges the application.”
