Recent research by a well respect company – Ernst & Young – shows that fears of bogus students – often caused by outrageous headlines – are unfounded and the risk of fraudulent international students is in fact low.
In major student destinations across the world, headlines whip up frenzy about the threat we face from bogus and fraudulent international students. The US, UK and Australia are popular study destinations and it is no surprise that the media has caused blind fear amongst their populations, with over 3 million students arriving in these countries each year.
It is a given that all parts of the international student recruitment chain must take steps to protect both national security and the reputation of each country’s education industry. All three countries share similar process for the detection and prevention of visa fraud. The US rejected more than a third of the total 490,000 applications processed and the UK a similar proportion of the 350,000 total applications. Yet Australia is the only country taking transparency of the visa process seriously, publishing detailed analysis of why students are refused visas. Given the similarities of the systems and processes in place, this data has provided good information on the scale and impact of supposed student visa fraud.
Evidence from Australia is clear: student visa fraud is limited and the processes and checks in place are fit for purpose. Of the 280,000 student visas issued for Australia in 2008, less than 0.5% of students had their visas cancelled for meeting their obligations as students, such as failing to attend classes regularly.
The Ernst & Young report, commissioned by DIAC – the Australian Government Department of Immigration and Citizenship – looked at 15 areas of risk, from document fraud committed by students, to collusion by sponsors and agents.
The report found only one risk category to be “significant” but was deemed so rare to be of little to no significance; fraudulent military service records.
Every other category of risk was found to be moderate or low risk and the report writers stated that, “…the visa issuing programme is operating in a risk environment with a moderate overall fraud risk profile”.
A report such as this would not be free of recommendations however, yet Ernst & Young could only suggest non-urgent areas on which to focus attention. They concluded that steps should be taken to improve Entry Clearance Officers’ abilities to assess English language qualifications and financial records. The report did highlight the role of education consultancies that are key in placing students on courses. Australia had already taken steps to build a network of trusted agents, who are given priority visa processing access.
DIAC commented on the report: “We are concerned about education agents engaging in fraudulent practices. In 2009 the minister announced enhanced integrity measures, including upgrading the interview programme in case loads that were identified as high risk to build up evidence of fraud and removing access to eVisa to some agents where there is evidence of fraud.”
Australia has a more country-specific approach to scrutinising visa applications, which the UK would do well to implement. Applicants from India, Mauritius, Nepal, Brazil, Zimbabwe and Pakistan face greater scrutiny when applying for an Australian study visa. In China, things are taken a little bit further, where only government registered agencies can place students on courses in Australia. You’d worry this could stifle business, but Chinese students accounted for 18% of Australia’s total international student population in 2008.
Agents place one in five international students on courses in the UK and the government is committed to improving the quality of agents. The British Council has been active in bringing together representatives to better co-ordinate policies in the main countries offering English language courses.
This will not be possible however, without greater transparency from immigration authorities. Whilst DIAC seems to have a relatively open approach, the Ernst & Young warned that data gathering methods relating to visa fraud could be improved.
But by far the most important lesson to learn from the DIAC approach is that fraudsters move with the times and are quick to target new areas of potential weakness once other avenues are closed. In 2008, 53% of visa refusals were for applicants applying to universities. In 2009, this fell to 39% and colleges appeared to be under greater attack, with 50% of applications rejected for fraud.
Thank you Daniel – I agree, there needs to be caution about believing everything we read – from whatever source!
The research mentioned has not touched those at grassroots level. The report is not accurate insofar the realities on the ground.
Do you know who commissioned the report and why?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
well well well ausies are busy to implement fair policies which encourage genuine students on the other hand ukba is changing its guidence for students well for me its not guidence its a register for misguidence i bet even ukba officials dont know when they change what in the guidence n how many times they implement what theY change in past UKBA ROCKS……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for the comments asim.
I think there’s truth to what you’ve said and for sure, officials in BHCs worldwide do not seem to have a grasp of the constantly changing guidance. Case in point: applications being refused when a sponsor’s licence has been suspended after an application has been submitted.
The UKBA needs to ensure proper training of its global personnel or see the image of the Agency and the UK damaged.
I’m also highly suspicious of some changes made by the UKBA: they’ve created new immigration rules without Parliamentary scrutiny, which they do not have the power to do. They seem to think they can do what they like.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It seems that Ernst and Young have access to material that is not accessible to some of us here in the UK.
Their criticism of the headlines is strange! I, for one, would not give them any business if that is how they give information!
Many of us on the ground KNOW how many bogus students still slip through the net – and we meet them EVERYDAY.
In ths instance the HEADLINES in newspapers are accurate and the facts behind their headlines verifiable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nice to hear from you again Bruce.
What Ernst & Young have done is to conduct a study of the Australian immigration system and have argued that their conclusions can be applied to countries that have similar control processes in place – points based systems – which the UK, Australia and the USA have. There is some validity in constructing an argument this way however, one must be careful in drawing conclusions where there is no transparency from immigration authorities.
I think an interesting point to come out of this piece is exactly one of transparency: the UK could do well to open up refusal data and provide analysis on just why it is that applications are being refused. What do they have to hide in keeping this data secret?
I would exercise caution in believing any headline as media outlets want to sell papers: controversial headlines have done this since the printing press and mass media came into existence. If we believed everything we read, we wouldn’t go outside for fear of being mugged by a hoody, abused by a paedophile and that everything would be better if Princess Diana was still alive.
Now I know you are not trying to suggest a blind belief in the media, however you’d be surprised how many in the general population believe exactly what is spoon fed to them. This point is neatly shown in the rather ridiculous coverage given to immigration issues in the run up to the General Election.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0