The proposals for student visa reforms have been met with much applause, but is it really worth cheering? For Chinese students, there's not much to celebrate and a lot to worry about in what these changes touch upon. The specific terms of the report will not be repeated here. Since there are no formal legal documents yet, many details are still being finalized. Although USCIS announced some explanations yesterday, a lot of content remains undetermined. The Immigration Minister and Higher Education Minister stated for the first time that they would adopt all 41 recommendations, which raises doubts: Is this program merely a government scheme under the guise of helping educational institutions, or do the two ministers have extraordinary foresight beyond the ordinary and mediocre? Or is it an extremely serious attempt to grasp at the last straw of declining overseas education exports?
Among the 41 recommendations, educational institutions seem to benefit most, particularly universities, followed by English colleges. TAFE and private institutions are relegated to second-class citizens, equivalent to China’s rural households. Of course, TAFE and private school students also become second-class students. The greatest beneficiaries among overseas students are those who can apply for work visas lasting two to four years after graduation, followed by university students whose programs align with the benefits of the visa.
Let’s look at the visa application process. According to a similar risk level assessment, financial guarantees are not required. But how do we determine if the applicant is qualified? Or how can we know if the applicant meets immigration requirements? Knight told reporters in Canberra that determining the future of this work would fall on universities, which would assess students' economic capacity, language ability, learning ability, age, and courses to decide whether students genuinely intend to study. However, it is unclear whether universities should bear the responsibility for investigating and assessing students’ finances. First, there is a conflict of interest as schools rely on overseas students for income. Second, uniform laws and regulations should protect applicants' fairness according to legal standards, allowing schools to accept or reject students based on their own criteria.
Even if you are truly determined to study and have been admitted, your student visa application must still be assessed by immigration officials to determine your intention to return home. This means you must comply with the Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) requirement, which stipulates your real intention to return (hereafter referred to as GTE requirements). The identification process is even stranger—should we ask the students themselves? Their parents? Their teachers? Their friends? Of course not. USCIS explained that current guidance is based on internal documents, such as regions where students have a high proportion of failing to return, areas with more sham marriages, media reports suggesting people from certain places are less likely to leave, etc. These factors determine visa success rates, making the trial extremely unfair for individual students unless immigration judges disclose the rules publicly. Otherwise, everyone is playing a game where only the referee knows the rules while other students, schools, agencies, or whatever, are merely toys in the hands of visa officers.
Here are two examples:
(1) An application from a high school student in Xinjiang was rejected because, although the student met all conditions, immigration officials determined, based on media articles, reports, and U.S. government PR application trends, that rising numbers of high school graduates had a tendency not to return, thus failing the GTE requirement.
(2) Three years ago, the risk level for English visas in China was reduced from 570 to three, and anyone outside immediate family security was excluded. Indeed, language schools in Australia experienced a large number of rejections. In our experience, even when visa application requirements were met, inconsistencies with GTE chants led to wasted money and effort.
Truthfully, Chinese student visa applications currently have an issuance rate exceeding 90%. From this perspective, the threshold seems lower, but the school doors, combined with irregular immigration policies, open and close inconsistently, which is not beneficial for Chinese students.
Lastly, the 2-4 year work visa (PSW visa) is the only real beneficial change I see for overseas students studying at universities. Although visa applications may have IELTS or other requirements, at least it gives students opportunities to earn money, work, gain practical experience, and potentially immigrate. I hope future students cherish this hard-won opportunity to study in New Zealand rather than waste two years working at KFC or McDonald’s. We will extend this topic later to discuss how to use these work visas to achieve goals.
Frank Lin
Frank L Z & Associates
Frank Studying Immigration Office in Australia
Consultant email: franklz.com.au @ gmail.com
October 7, 2011
www.franklz.com.au
Copyright: This article can be reproduced, reprinted, or hyperlinked, provided the original source and author information are clearly indicated along with this statement.
Related Topics:
beats by dre kobe headphones 8I Monster lebron james beats by dre anyway 5B justin bieber beats half dictation 2F beats studio diamond headphones 1R
Copyright: Anyone reproducing this material for any purpose must indicate the source of the article and the author. Otherwise, the author of the article may hold you accountable.