By Sagar Lohani
Canberra says it still wants international students. Its visa decisions tell families in Nepal, Bangladesh and India something else.
The Australian Government has maintained the national planning level for new overseas student commencements at 295,000 for 2026 and confirmed the same figure for 2027. Ministers continue to describe international education as one of the country’s most important industries, worth about AU$53.6 billion in 2024-25.
Yet more than half of Nepali student visa applications were refused in 2025-26. When the gap between the welcome and the refusal letter grows this wide, it stops being a series of individual decisions and becomes a policy problem in its own right.
The overall student visa refusal rate reached 24.2% in June 2026, up from 7.9% a decade earlier, according to Home Affairs figures reported by the ABC. For South Asia, the picture is far starker. ICEF Monitor reported that in February 2026, 65% of Nepali applicants seeking to study at Australian universities were refused, along with 51% of Bangladeshi applicants and 40% of Indian applicants, compared with about 3.5% of Chinese applicants.
Across the full 2025–26 financial year, more than 51% of Nepali and more than 40% of Indian student visa applications were refused, compared with 5.8% of Chinese applications. Home Affairs says it does not assess applications by nationality. However, from 8 January 2026, India joined Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan at Evidence Level 3, the highest evidence-documentation level, requiring applicants to provide more supporting material.
The Genuine Student requirement, which replaced the Genuine Temporary Entrant test in March 2024, was intended to simplify the assessment process. Applicants are asked about their circumstances, why they chose their course and provider, how the study will benefit their future, and any other relevant matters.
In practice, the assessment can involve considerable judgement. Refusal letters reviewed by the ABC cite statements that did not provide a sufficiently strong reason to study in Australia, or study plans that officers were “not satisfied” with. Migration agents describe the letters as vague and repetitive, arguing that outcomes can depend heavily on the officer assessing the application.
Financial capacity is another common reason for refusal. Applicants must demonstrate access to at least AU$29,710 for 12 months of living costs, in addition to tuition and travel expenses. Applicants subject to Evidence Level 3 requirements must also provide the specified supporting evidence to establish their financial capacity.
Families respond by over-preparing. Home Affairs offers a document checklist tool, but it tells applicants what types of evidence to provide, not precisely what will satisfy an assessing officer.
A typical application from Kathmandu, Dhaka or Hyderabad may include at least three months of bank statements, sponsors’ tax returns, payslips or business records, explanations for significant deposits, property valuations, loan sanction letters, relationship documents for sponsors, verified academic transcripts, English-language test results and explanations for study gaps.
Practitioners report that some applications contain more than 100 documents. Yet applicants may still receive refusals citing the Genuine Student requirement or financial capacity without clearly identifying which evidence was considered inadequate.
The financial consequences have also increased. Since 1 July 2026, the standard student visa application charge has risen from AU$2,000 to AU$2,500. The charge is generally non-refundable if an application is refused, adding to the costs of agent fees, months spent preparing an application and the consequences of a refusal on an applicant’s immigration record.
The government has not closed the door to South Asian students, nor has it reduced the national planning level. But higher refusal rates, more demanding evidence requirements, increased application fees and restrictions on including family members in new student visa applications all affect prospective students’ decisions.
When announcing the family-member restrictions, Immigration Minister Tony Burke cited figures showing that around 46,000 dependants had been granted visas alongside approximately 337,000 student visas in the previous financial year. The new rules, which took effect on 2 October, prevent most student visa applicants from including partners and dependent children, subject to specified exemptions.
Indian student visa applications had already fallen by 33% between 2023-24 and 2024-25, while Nepali applications declined by 10%. The latest data also points to a weakening pipeline of international students. Chinese applications for Australian higher education fell by 39% in February 2026 compared with February 2025.
The precise picture varies by market and measure, but the broader concern is clear: increasingly difficult visa outcomes can discourage prospective students even when Australia continues to promote itself as a study destination.
Burke told the National Press Club in September that the aim was for universities to sell “an education, not a migration outcome”. That is a fair principle, and genuine students should be prepared to demonstrate that study is their primary purpose.
What they should not have to navigate is a standard that remains unclear in practice.
If Australia wants to attract genuine students, it should explain its expectations more clearly. It should publish a standard Evidence Level 3 checklist setting out the financial and Genuine Student evidence applicants are expected to provide. It should issue more specific refusal reasons that identify the documents or claims considered inadequate, rather than relying on generic paragraphs. It should also publish refusal rates by country and education sector every quarter, allowing families and providers to understand the risks before paying application fees.
Finally, the government should consider a low-cost review or resubmission mechanism for cases where a refusal rests on missing or inadequate documentation rather than suspected fraud.
A clear rule that is difficult to meet can still be fair. An unclear rule, applied inconsistently or explained poorly, risks sending students to Germany, Japan and other destinations instead. Many may never reconsider Australia.
Contributing Author: Sagar Lohani is a Sydney-based educationist and experienced trainer with a demonstrated history of working in the education management industry.
Support our Journalism
No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.
