Eleven Australian universities have had their immigration risk levels downgraded, as soaring visa rejections undermine their future overseas enrolments.

Nine universities that previously bore the most trustworthy level 1 risk assessment were downgraded to level 2, when the Department of ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ Affairs (DHA) updated the ratings on 2 April. Two other universities have been demoted from level 2 to the?lowest possible level 3 category, with over 100 other colleges also understood to have had their risk ratings lowered.

The ratings reflect ¡°¡± based on the proportion of each institution¡¯s would-be students whose visas are rejected or cancelled, or who seek asylum or overstay illegally.

The rate of visa refusals for reasons other than fraud counts for just 10 per cent of each university¡¯s score. Rejections of this type have skyrocketed in recent months, as officials rule that the applicants lack sufficient incentive to leave Australia after studying.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Overseas-based people applying for visas to undertake Australian degrees now have a one-in-five chance of being knocked back. Newly released DHA statistics show that grant rates have slumped to the lowest level on record, suggesting that visa refusals have contributed significantly to the decline in universities¡¯ risk ratings.

Most universities now have level 2 or 3 ratings, with just 16 maintaining their level 1 assessments ¨C mostly large, wealthy institutions.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

All but two are in the three largest states and all but four have annual earnings exceeding A$1 billion (?517 million), suggesting that significant resources are needed to weather rapidly changing migration policies.

Poor risk ratings harm universities¡¯ international recruitment, because visa applicants from countries that are also considered moderate or high risk must supply additional evidence about their English skills and personal finances. Their applications are also processed less quickly than those from students enrolled with level 1 institutions.

The risk rating system is part of the simplified student visa framework (SSVF), which was introduced in 2016 to make visa applications easier for students and to reduce red tape for colleges. Mike Ferguson, pro vice-chancellor international at Charles Sturt University, said the SSVF had ¡°reached its use-by date¡± and should be replaced.

Mr Ferguson, who led the framework¡¯s design and implementation as a former DHA director of international education policy, said recent policy changes had led to visa delays and occasionally ¡°nonsensical¡± refusals. ¡°It is time to move away from a provider-risk based model,¡± he declared in a .

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Peter Hughes, former deputy secretary of the then Department of Immigration and Citizenship, said Australia¡¯s recent immigration history had been ¡°littered¡± with ¡°clever initiatives¡± designed to make it harder for foreigners to be in the country unlawfully. ¡°They usually leave a minefield which explodes under another government years later,¡± he writes in the public policy journal .

¡°The practice of governments is now that when they get into a political hole, they just instinctively dig a deeper one.¡±

Mr Ferguson said he favoured a system where all applicants were required to provide information about their financial capacity and language skills, irrespective of where they were enrolled.

¡°This would help to address some of the quality issues that are currently being faced, as well as potential issues such as the targeting of lower risk providers, market distortion and ¨C to a degree ¨C course hopping.¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com