Students are choosing to go elsewhere. Post-graduation work permit eligibility has been narrowed, rewritten, partly suspended and then frozen, all within two years. Whatever you make of any individual change, a student committing four years and a family’s savings is not going to put everything on the line for a country that is so unpredictable. Instability is its own deterrent, and it isn’t something a recruitment team can out-work.

That is an uncomfortable truth for many institutional leaders. The numbers are down, the pressure is real and immediate, and the largest single cause sits outside the institution entirely. Canadian institutions have gotten used to operating in the growth-era during which a typical response was to push harder at the top of the funnel: more leads, more applications, more fairs. That’s why most teams are exhausted and still short.

What changed underneath the funnel

During the good old days, when you had several applications for every seat, losing one at a departmental handoff was just noise. You had surplus, and surplus forgives a great deal. Now the surplus is gone. Every new inquiry has to survive the entire lifecycle, because there is nothing queued behind it. That same handoff loss that cost you nothing before costs you the seat today.

You already know applications and inquiries are down; you didn’t need a dashboard for that. A question worth asking now is what happens to the interest you are still generating.

The answer lies mostly at the handoffs between units. Each unit tends to report its own stage as healthy, and it’s not wrong because inside its own boundary it usually is. Recruitment followed up on the inquiries it received. Admissions assessed every application and got the offers out on time. The registrar’s office enrolled every student who showed up. All three can still be true in your worst enrolment year. Each unit owns a stage in the lifecycle, but nobody owns the space between the stages.

Earlier this year, Capilano University commissioned a strategic enrolment management (SEM) audit. Mike Henniger covered international recruitment, Jody Gordon student success and retention, and I marketing, communications and conversion. Through the audit we built a checklist of more than 150 best practices mapped across 16 stages of the student lifecycle, from first inquiry to alumni giving. While the audit findings are confidential, the pattern the audit exposed is not confined to one institution.

The six gaps to check in your own lifecycle

Who chases the student who goes quiet? Recruitment owns the relationship until an application is submitted and then admissions takes over. Admissions chases documents and recruitment chases people, and a student who suddenly goes quiet because they’re still considering a competitor needs more nurturing from recruitment. Instead, they get a reminder about uploading their transcript.

What happens to an applicant while they wait? Most institutions track decision turnaround and have a service standard for it. Almost none has a clear owner for the weeks on either side of that decision. Many institutions cannot see the stage at all: with no mechanism for a student to accept or decline an offer, yield stays invisible until registration, which is far too late to act. Meanwhile, the things that would win the decision – course planning sessions, demo classes, a conversation with a faculty member – run in the wrong weeks or not at all. Your agents feel this stage hardest. They are holding a student’s confidence while your institution is silent, and they have no way to tell you where the delay is.

Who owns the stretch from deposit to first day? This is a stage that tends to get crowded. Recruitment and marketing are often still in touch, student services has begun onboarding, the registrar is sending registration details and finance is chasing tuition fees. Every team is watching closely, but nobody owns the sequence. A student who has received dozens of messages from six departments since the start of the process learns to stop reading your emails unless you take control over frequency, relevance and repetitiveness of your content. All that seems harmless until the one email that requires action or contains important information arrives looking like the rest of them. Yet on each team’s report, the messaging was fine.

Who owns the message when a student withdraws? Withdrawal and refund communications sit between the registrar, finance and marketing, but they are rarely governed by any of the three. Students who have a bad experience with a withdrawal and refund write about it publicly, and those complaints are now being repeated back to your prospective students by the AI tools they use to research you. That’s how an administrative problem becomes a recruitment problem.

Who owns the students who already left? I am not talking about your alumni. The students who paused or withdrew without finishing are a mixed group. Some ran out of money, some couldn’t get their visa extension, some left unhappy, some had a family situation, some struggled academically. A few institutions run re-engagement campaigns for this audience. In most, nobody owns them, and the reason is structural: the registrar holds the records, recruitment is measured on new inquiries, and no team’s targets include a returning student. Somewhere in that group is the cheapest enrolment available to you, and nobody has been asked to go and find it.

What is the true cost of your enrolled student? Marketing knows what it spent, by channel, by campaign, by agent. Institutional research knows who enrolled. Almost nobody can tell you what an enrolled student cost you through each channel. Most institutions capture a lead source in the CRM, which answers where someone came from, not how much it took to get them. So when finance comes to cut recruitment and marketing spend in a year like this one, nobody knows which agents, fairs and campaigns to keep, and the decision gets made on seniority and instinct.

Plenty of institutions already track two or three of these gaps. Very few track all six, and almost nobody has one person responsible for all of them. The ones that try usually stop at the first obstacle, which is definitions. Most institutions don’t have a shared answer to what good looks like at any stage. So you can measure one of these gaps, get a number, and still not know whether it is a problem. Eighteen days between submission and decision is either perfectly fine or a disaster, depending on a target nobody has set.

There is also a reporting-line reason these gaps stay hidden. Recruitment, admissions, the registrar’s office and student services usually report to different executives. By the time their numbers and reports reach an executive table, they have been summarised into stage totals, measured inside one unit’s boundary. That is the one format that cannot show a gap.

Three tests you can run this week

Trace twenty-five student files by hand. Pull twenty-five applications from last recruitment cycle at random and write down the dates at every stage: inquiry, application, decision, offer, deposit, registration. You are looking for the dates with the biggest gap between them. That gap tells you which of the six is yours.

Ask each unit head for their one number. Ask yourself: what is the one metric you’re accountable for? Then lay the answers along your institution’s lifecycle. The stages nobody names tend to be the stages that leak. Whatever nobody claims is where you start.

Mystery-shop your own inquiry form, then go quiet. Submit it from a top source market with a question a real student would ask, reply once, and then go dark. Watch who follows up, whether anyone follows up twice. Note which department the second message comes from. If it never comes, or it comes from a different team than the first, you have your answer.

If it’s everyone’s job, it’s nobody’s job

The fix is not a fancy dashboard or new funding. Name one person accountable for each of the six gaps. Publish them in a single report on a set cadence. Review them with every unit in the room, so no unit sees its number in isolation. Without assigned owners, these gaps revert to nobody’s job by the next intake.

This may look different for institutions running one centralised enrolment division. My sense is the gaps would move rather than disappear.

Capilano’s President, Jason Dewling, framed the question this way: “In difficult times, we should be asking ourselves, ‘are we doing everything we know to do?’”

There is very little new demand to find this year. The institutions that come through this in decent shape will be the ones that stopped losing the students who were already coming.

– Midya U runs , where she works with post-secondary institutions on marketing, branding, enrolment and AI strategy. She spent fifteen years inside Canadian higher ed marketing and recruitment, public and private – building award-winning teams, running eight-figure annual budgets through every regulatory curveball.

The post Recruiting under Canada’s international student cap: Six strategic enrolment gaps that matter appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

Representatives from more than 150 Canadian language programmes (English and French) responded to both the 2024 and 2025 editions of the survey, providing an analytical basis from which to compare trends in both years. The topline finding is that the number of students decreased by -13% and student weeks by -19% between 2024 and 2025.

Just over 81,600 students were enrolled in language programmes in 2025 (92% in English, 8% in French), collectively spending about 798,900 weeks in their studies.

The following chart from the report shows that the marked downward trend in student weeks began in 2023/2024. The language training sector is now roughly half the size it was in the year before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The value of the sector

Canada’s immigration policies have had a pronounced negative impact on international student numbers in Canadian institutions – and a much greater impact than the government anticipated. The result has been devastating for many institutions across levels and sub-sectors, but especially for language-training providers, which receive far fewer study permit allocations than universities do. In the foreword to the Languages Canada report, Gonzalo Peralta, the association’s executive director, notes:

“These policy decisions have significantly reduced enrolments, forcing programs to scale back operations and, in some cases, close entirely.

“While economic uncertainty and increased international competition contributed to the downturn, it is the policy environment that most decisively undermined the sector’s stability and growth. The consequences are felt across the country, with institutions struggling to maintain viability and communities losing the economic and cultural benefits these programs provide.”

What is at stake is not only the sustainability of the sector, but also millions of dollars. Languages Canada reports:

“Even amid this crisis, Languages Canada members contributed an estimated CDN$1.03 billion directly to the Canadian economy in 2025 – representing direct economic activity, much of it generated through export revenues – highlighting the sector’s enduring value.”

The estimated economic impact of the sector decreased by -1% in 2025 versus 2024.

Top 10 markets

Japan is the main sender of students and by far the largest contributor of student weeks. The top 10 markets for Canadian language programmes (with numerical values in the chart below) are:

• Japan
• Brazil
• South Korea
• Mexico
• Canada (Canadian students studying French or English in their own country)
• China
• Colombia
• Taiwan
• France
• Italy

All markets are down – some of them significantly – other than Canada, which is relatively stable. This fact alone highlights the damaging effect of immigration policies that of course do not affect Canadian students applying to their own country’s language programmes.

Destination comparison

The Canadian language training sector is not alone in facing difficult trading conditions. In terms of student weeks – a more indicative source of volume for language programmes than student numbers – the change between 2024 and 2025 was -8% in the US, -10% in the UK’s private sector, and -18% in Ireland.

In Australia, official data on student weeks for the English-language (ELICOS sector) has not yet been released, but:

• ELICOS’s share of total international enrolments nearly halved between 2023 and 2025 (from 16.6% to 8.8%);
• Student numbers fell from 97,200 in 2024 to 60,850 in 2025;
• Visa applications for ELICOS study dropped by -39% in 2025 versus 2024.

Similar to Canada, Australian government policies are the major contributor to the sector’s troubles. In Canada, the issue is the student cap that disproportionately affects language providers. In Australia, the main depressor on demand is the steadily rising visa application fee, which now stands at AUS$2,050 for English-language applicants. Applying for an Australian study visa is now roughly as expensive as a short English-language course of 10 weeks – and the application fee is non-refundable for students who are rejected for a visa.

Languages Canada vows to continue lobbying

Writing in the Languages Canada report, Mr Peralta says:

“While the findings present a stark and candid assessment, Languages Canada remains committed to working with its members and partners to advocate for the changes needed to stabilise and rebuild Canada’s English and French language education sector, support learners from Canada and around the world, and ensure that these essential programs can survive and recover.”

For additional background, please see:

• “US: ELT weeks fell by nearly 8% in 2025”
• “UK’s ELT sector reports declining enrolments through first quarter of 2026”
• “Ireland’s ELT sector reports modest growth in student numbers, but weeks are down amid ‘real and consequential challenges’”
• “Australia: Full-year data for 2025 reveals impact of AUD$2,000 study visa fee on ELICOS sector”
• “Canada’s language training sector reinvents pathway programme model in response to policy settings”

The post Canada’s language training sector in “state of crisis” after further enrolment declines in 2025 appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

The insights come at a time when Canadian immigration officials are being directed to more thoroughly investigate students’ sources of funding. , but meeting those requirements does not automatically secure a better chance of approval. What increasingly matters is that (1) funds are presented through clear and proper paperwork and that (2) a student’s financial situation is stable. An atypical infusion of cash into a bank account, for example, is likely to raise eyebrows at Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).

Contrasting trends

Compared with January–April 2025, IRCC processed -43% fewer new study permit applications than in the same period in 2026. However, the overall approval rate increased by +9 percentage points to 35%.

The immigration assistance company believes that “tighter policy settings and stricter financial documentation requirements are filtering weaker-profile applications out of the system, leaving a pool that succeeds more often.”

Top markets’ approval rates indicate that some countries are deemed higher risk. For example, more than 90% of South Koreans are approved and more than 50% of Chinese are … compared with less than a third in the remaining countries in the following chart.

However, several emerging markets are faring better than last year (through the first four months of 2026) in terms of students’ chances of being approved for a study permit. This includes key markets India (+13% between January–April 2026 versus the same period in 2025) and Nigeria (+8).

Year-over-year trends aside, the consistent trend is that students from European (e.g., France) and some Asian origin markets (e.g., South Korean and Japan) are approved at a much higher rate than students from some Southeast Asian markets (e.g., the Philippines and Nepal) and especially than many African markets (e.g., Cote d’Ivoire , Cameroon, Senegal, Ghana, Guinea, Congo).

BorderPass makes an important point:

“Two institutions with comparable programs and admissions standards can post very different approval rates on recruitment mix alone. Approval rate benchmarks are only meaningful when adjusted for the markets an institution actually recruits from.”

What does this mean for Canadian higher education institutions?

It means that universities and colleges that have invested heavily in diversifying their enrolments to the most emerging of emerging markets (e.g., in West and Central Africa) need to ensure their applicants have incredibly strong documentation behind their study permit applications.

To illustrate the point, of 1,370 study permit refusal letters found that “money paperwork (i.e., could not clearly prove funds)” was by far the main reason Canadian immigration officials cited for a refusal (47%). “Family on the file (i.e., spouses or kids)” and “expired PAL/TAL letter” were much further down the list at 10% each.

ApplyBoard elaborates:

“Almost half of refused students lost on money paperwork. Many of them likely had the money. They just could not prove it in a way a visa officer could trust.”

ApplyBoard’s finding is even more relevant now given newly published IRCC guidance for study permit application processing.

reports that on 24 July 2026, IRCC updated its guidance to immigration officers reviewing study permit applications, directing them to “scrutinise the amount(s) and source(s) of applicants’ funding” and further that “in all cases, the source of funds” must be assessed.”

The update also recommends that officers consider asking for “supplementary individual or family financial and employment documentation to ensure that only genuine students capable of supporting themselves for the full duration of their program of studies are granted study permits.” Previously, IRCC had only advised a review of supplementary documentation in “very high-risk environments.” That specification was removed from the updated guidance, indicating that IRCC officers will now be asking for that supplementary documentation more often.

From its analysis, ApplyBoard suggests four “fixes” to strengthen the financial component of study permit applications:

• GIC confirmation (i.e., a Guaranteed Investment Certificate purchased from a Canadian financial institution that serves as formal proof of funds for living expenses in a study permit application);
• Six months of bank statements with no surprise deposits;
• A sponsor’s job letter plus three months of pay stubs;
• A one-page note explaining any large deposit.

Implications for enrolment management

More broadly, BorderPass recommends that volume-based enrolment planning be replaced by “planning built on conversion quality,” noting that the latter is “better matched to the current system … which is operating at a structurally smaller scale than a year ago.”

The implication is that issuing admissions offfers only to students with strong documentation is a must, as is offering greater assistance to genuine students from emerging markets to help them strengthen their applications.

For additional background, please see:

• “Canadian immigration officials have made several updates to compliance guidance for study permits and post-graduate work permits”
• “Canadian immigration officials move to ease rules around student work permits”
• “New data provides early signals that Canada’s popularity as a study destination is on the rise”

The post Canadian immigration officials increase their scrutiny of study permit applicants’ financial documentation appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

The public files are in many respects an under-appreciated resource, because they provide detailed guidance about the rules and compliance requirements for Canada’s various immigration streams. They also provide a window into how, over time, that guidance can be expanded, clarified, or otherwise changed.

The larger context here is that many students gather information about compliance or the fine points of their visa status from peers, through online message boards, and from other unofficial sources. Many, too, file their own applications for visas or renewals without assistance from an authorised advisor or lawyer – and they may or may not be aware of the latest official guidance.

A number of changes have been published in recent weeks to the reference files for study permit and post-graduate work permit (PGWP) compliance. Not all of these are rule changes. Rather, many take the form of useful clarifications of established policy or practice. That said, keeping track of those changes can be tricky as they may not be publicly announced or otherwise highlighted in the published files.

In broad terms, the revisions made in the second half of June point to greater scrutiny of the enrolment status and academic progress of continuing students, students transferring between programmes and institutions, and students’ absence or leave from studies. They also introduce important updates to PGWP eligibility, and they mark the end of an exception for temporary residents to pursue studies in Canada without a study permit.

Actively pursuing studies

The current version (as of 18 June 2026) of the IRCC file “” expands on the department’s expectations for the active pursuit of studies and academic progression with additional detail on when the programme of studies is considered to be completed.

Specifically, it stipulates that:

“Studies are considered officially completed on the date the DLI first notifies the student by any of the following:

• Completion letter
• Transcript
• Degree or diploma

The date stated on the document will be considered the date of notification unless the applicant and/or DLI can provide proof of a different date.”

The significance of that mechanism is underscored by a related note in the study permit guidance, which specifies that the student’s study permit “will become invalid … 90 days after the day the study permit holder completed their studies.”

Changing DLIs or programmes of study

The include considerable expansion of the rules around transferring between institutions.

This guidance is based on a rule change, effective 8 November 2024, which stipulates that “study permit holders in Canada, whose permit names a DLI [Designated Learning Institution], must apply for a new study permit if they wish to change designated learning institutions (DLIs).”

The updated file expands on this point by specifying that “study permit holders must adhere to the condition that they remain enrolled at the DLI named on their study permit until they complete their studies … their study permit becomes invalid on the day that they are no longer enrolled at the DLI named on their study permit, other than as a result of completing their studies.”

“Therefore, if a student whose study permit names a DLI has changed DLIs without applying for a new study permit, their previous study permit is rendered invalid and the student is considered to be studying without authorization at the new DLI.”

The updated guidance also addresses the scenario where a student may have a study permit that does not specify a DLI: “If a post-secondary student holds a study permit issued prior to November 8, 2024,that does not name a DLI, they should apply for a new study permit when changing DLIs. Once that study permit with no DLI is expired, they must apply for a new study permit which will be issued with the name of the DLI they are attending.”

The bottom line is that students cannot change institutions before they obtain a new study permit that specifies the new DLI.

The exception to this pertains to students who transfer to a different programme of study within the same DLI: “Students engaging in post-secondary studies in Canada are authorized to change programs of study within the same DLI at the same level of study, provided they are not limited from doing so by conditions imposed on their study permit.”

Finally, the expanded guidance in this area also provides some clear provisions for secondary students transitioning to post-secondary education:

“Students must apply for a new study permit with the DLI’s name on it when they transition to post-secondary studies to avoid any non-compliance issues.”

And:

“If a student is attending a secondary school while on a visitor record, they must wait for their study permit application to be approved before beginning studies at the post-secondary level.”

Leave from studies

remains consistent from past versions in that, “Students may be required or may wish to take leave from their studies while in Canada. For the purpose of assessing if a student is actively pursuing their studies, any leave taken from a program of studies in Canada should not exceed 150 days from the date the leave commenced and must be authorized by their DLI.”

However, the 18 June updates expand on multiple leave periods and work rights during a leave from studies.

The point regarding multiple leave periods is in keeping with an overall pattern towards greater scrutiny of student progress: “In cases where a student has taken multiple periods of authorized leave in Canada during their program of study, the officer should consider the student’s reasons for the various periods of leave. If the multiple periods of leave do not appear to support the expectation that the student is making reasonable progress toward the completion of their course or program of study in the time allotted by the course or program of study, the officer may determine that the study permit holder has not fulfilled the condition to actively pursue their course or program of study.”

And on the question of working during a leave from studies, the updated document sets out plainly that, “If a study permit holder is not attending class full time, they are not eligible to work as per the condition listed on their study permit … During any leave from studies, including DLI closures, a study permit holder cannot work on or off campus.”

PGWP and non-credit programmes

IRCC also updated its guidance for on 24 June 2026. The notable change here occurs in the section “Who’s not eligible for a PGWP” which has been changed to specify that students are not eligible if they have “completed a non-credit program of study (except for a flight school program).”

The significance of such updates is underscored by the high-profile case of a large number of PGWP application rejections this month for graduates from the Canadian Institute of Osteopathic Therapy (CIOT) in Calgary. CIOT delivers programmes in partnership with , and students in such public-private partnerships (P3) are no longer eligible for PGWPs following a rule change that came into effect on 15 May 2024.

However, many of the CIOT students who have had their PGWP applications refused began their studies prior to that May 2024 effective date, and therefore should be grandfathered under the previous policy that allowed students in P3 programmes to be eligible for post-study work.

, an independent news outlet, reports that, “The students immediately inquired about this with [IRCC], which said the mass rejections were due to recent policy changes, including that non-credit courses were no longer eligible for work permits …. This modification was made on June 24, years after the students initially started their programs and 18 to 21 months after they submitted their work permit applications.”

In a written response to Livewire Calgary, IRCC explained that “There have been no changes to the eligibility criteria. We updated our PGWP webpage in June 2026 to clarify the existing eligibility requirements related to non-credit programs of study.”

The inference from that reporting is that (i) the policy around non-credit study may have been clear within IRCC but may not have been commonly understood otherwise; (ii) IRCC appears to have determined that there was some ambiguity in this area, thus the 24 June update; and (iii) because this does not represent, in the apparent view of IRCC, a rule change (but rather a clarification), students may not be automatically grandfathered.

91ɬ��Monitor understands that many of the affected students are appealing their PGWP refusals and that the published guidance in this area may be further tested as a result.

Study for work permit holders

Finally, IRCC has also closed out that allowed some work permit holders to study in Canada without a study permit.

This policy had been in place from 27 June 2023, and it officially expired on 27 June 2026.

For additional background, please see:

• “OECD: International students may be underinformed about job prospects in top destinations“
• “New data provides early signals that Canada’s popularity as a study destination is on the rise“
• “New international student permit approvals for Canada fell below COVID levels in 2025“
• “Canada’s foreign enrolment has fallen by nearly 300,000 students over the last two years“

The post Canadian immigration officials have made several updates to compliance guidance for study permits and post-graduate work permits appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

This dream is one that is often referenced by universities promoting their programmes abroad, and it tends to be presented as universally possible. But the truth is that only some students are able to progress along that pathway.

The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) has produced a report called “” The analysis shows that institutions in major destinations may be:

• Overpromising a route that is attainable only by a segment of their foreign graduates;
• Not providing the level of language and career supports needed by many graduates to have a good chance of working in-country after their studies and/or gaining permanent residency.

The report also reveals that government policies – and policy volatility – can present unforeseen challenges for international graduates hoping to find jobs that match their hard-won skills.

The OECD observes: “There appear to be tensions between recruitment messaging, which suggests future employment and possible residence, and the realities of post‑graduation opportunities.”

This can lead to false confidence among international students, who, “not always having all relevant information, have at times, an unrealistic expectation of the ease with which they can find a job, secure visa/permit and obtain permanent residency or even citizenship.”

Retention is an issue

Across the six countries analysed, the highest five-year retention rates were in Canada and Germany (52% each). This dipped significantly to about a third in Australia and France (34% and 33%, respectively) and to 19% in the Netherlands. In the UK, only 7% of international graduates were still in the country on a work permit or other immigration permission after five years.

These low retention rates contrast with international students’ high hopes to remain in the country to work after completing their studies: over 70% in Canada, 73% in the Netherlands, 64% in Germany, and 83% in France want to stay on to work.

What barriers are international graduates facing?

The reality that many international graduates face is that employers in their host country find it too cumbersome or expensive to hire them. This leaves many students at a pronounced disadvantage compared with domestic peers.

For example, in Australia, found that for about 20% of international graduates who reported taking a job which they were overqualified, the main reason was that they did not have permanent residency. Many Australian employers see temporary visas as unstable (in the sense that these visas have an expiry date) and administratively burdensome. It is not worth it for them to invest time and money in hiring a foreigner if they can find a domestic graduate with the right skills for the position.

As a result, many graduates go into “visa limbo” where they accept poorly paid jobs unrelated to their skill-set and education. They often apply for another work visa to remain in the country, but they end up becoming “permanently temporary” rather than permanent residents.

The report referenced surveys showing that in three of the six countries analysed, most international students say they feel inadequately prepared to secure a job after graduation and/or to find a job after their studies. For example:

• In the Netherlands, 59% faced difficulty in finding a job after graduation;
• In Germany, only 35% felt “rather” or “well” supported by their institution in planning their career;
• In the UK, 53% thought career support and placements at their institution , followed by internships and experiential learning.

The OECD notes:

“There seems to be a shared nervousness about the transition to employment among both international and domestic students. However, in the case of international graduates, the transition to employment is also tied with the possibility to remain in the country.”

The list of barriers can also include low language proficiency in destinations where English is not the dominant language:

“During their studies, international students are surrounded by English, in their institution and [because] they tend to socialise with other internationals. However, job opportunities for English speakers … tend to be very limited and concentrated in a few specific industries. Most companies in France, Germany, or the Netherlands will still expect at least working-level proficiency of the local language.”

This is particularly relevant given the high number of English-taught programmes (ETPs) in France, Germany, and the Netherlands – many of which do not require competency in these countries’ official languages. These are major attractions for non-EU students especially, and non-EU students are also the segment most interested in remaining in their host country after completing their studies. The issue here is that many of those ETP-enrolled students will not have gained sufficient proficiency in the official language (French, German, or Dutch) to compete successfully for jobs.

Recommendations

The OECD recommends that institutions adopt “a more realistic approach that clearly communicates that available opportunities, jobs and permanent residency permits, might be scarce. That stay after graduation is not guaranteed, and that there is a significant uncertainty about whether a particular international student will be able to settle in the country long term.”

Specific recommendations for policy makers and institutions include:

• Helping international students to understand the labour market, before and during their studies, to guide them in what topics to focus on and on choices regarding their education.



• Integrating labour-market literacy into programmes, supported by career centres. 



• Allowing students to engage with employers and  gain work experience during their studies. For example, “both professional networks and relevant work experience have been identified as among the most highly rated factors in finding employment by international graduates in the Netherlands.” This recommendation means “higher education institutions must establish and maintain strong relations with relevant employers.”



• Informing international students to start looking for possible employment early, to better inform them about various employment opportunities: “International students tend to be aware of the big and well-known companies but are not always aware of small- and medium-sized businesses and other employers.”

• Developing alumni networks that allow international graduates to turn to former students for career support and guidance.

For additional background, please see:

• “Germany’s foreign enrolment continued to grow in the 2025/25 academic year”
• “Many foreign students want to stay in Germany but need more help with the transition to life after study”
• “Netherlands reports first-ever decrease in foreign enrolment for 2025/26”
• “Canada struggling to attract and retain global talent”
• “UK to implement reduced Graduate Route from January 2027”

The post OECD: International students may be underinformed about job prospects in top destinations appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

It is no coincidence that the Key Five are all emerging countries in the Global South, where large proportions of students are open to emigrating, temporarily or permanently, because of limited local opportunities. This makes immigration officials tend to question whether study visa applicants are genuine students – i.e., interested in quality education, a high-skilled job, and remaining compliant with visa conditions – or individuals with little intent to study and great intent to migrate in any way they can. Unfortunately, many genuine students from the Global South are disadvantaged in their applications because of where they are from.

The impact of the visa rejection trend for students from emerging economies in Asia and Africa could be enormous across the global international education landscape – and beyond. Already, it is spurring fewer visa grants, reduced recruiting in high-risk markets, and more withdrawals from students eager to avoid a rejection on their student profile. Not surprisingly, commencements are trending down in leading study destinations, and this will pressure overall enrolments in the years ahead.

In this article, we will look at Key Five origin countries with regards to:

• Their importance to overall enrolments across the Big Four;
• Recent study visa rejection rates;
• Commencement trends (i.e., the volume of new students provided a study visa allowing them to enrol in a Big Four education institution).

Contribution to overall international student numbers

According to the most recent available enrolment data, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Nigeria, and Pakistan compose anywhere from 30% to 40%+ of the entire international student body in Big Four destinations.

Visa rejection rates for the Key Five

Having looked at the huge presence of Key Five students in the total international student populations of the Big Four, we’ll turn to recent visa refusal trends (where official data are available).

Bangladesh: Nearly three-quarters (73%) of Bangladeshi applicants for US F-1 visas were turned away in 2025. Bangladeshi students have in recent years been very likely to receive a visa for Australia (about a 5% rejection rate in 2024/25), but in February 2026, more than half (51%) of offshore applicants from Bangladesh were refused.

India: Indian students, who represent either the #1 or #2 source market across the Big Four, are now quite likely to be refused a study visa in those destinations. Rejection rates were 61% in the US (2025), 80% in Canada (Q2 2025), and 60% in Australia (February 2026). While only 7.5% were denied a sponsored study visa in the UK in Q4 2025–Q1 2026, this this was up from less than 4% in winter 2024/25.

Nepal: More than 8 in 10 (81%) Nepali applicants were rejected for a US F-1 visa in 2025, and in February 2026, the Australian study visa rejection rate for Nepal soared to 65%. Interestingly, Nepali students were more likely to be approved for a UK sponsored study visa in winter 2025/26 than in winter 2024/25, bucking the general trend for emerging markets (see chart below).

Nigeria: Since December 2025, Nigerians have been included in an expanded travel ban announced by the US administration, along with dozens of other countries (mostly in Africa and Asia). In the UK, sponsored study rejections for Nigerian students used to be rare (less than 5%), but in winter 2025/26, 20% of Nigerian applicants were turned away. In Canada, between 70–80% were refused a study permit in in 2025.

Pakistan: More than 70% of Pakistanis were refused an F-1 visa in the US in 2026, and more than 6 in 10 offshore applicants from Pakistan were denied an Australian study visa in February 2026. Like Nigerians, Pakistani students applying for a sponsored study visa in the UK saw their rejection rate spike massively in winter 2025/26: increasing from 5.6% to 41% year-over-year.

These rejection rates for Key Five countries represent an absolutely huge number of potential students turned away.

What is happening to commencements?

Key Five commencements (new student entrants) are falling across the Big Four, with less than a handful of exceptions.
 
A striking example is F-1 visa issuances in the US in July/August of 2024 compared with July/August 2025. The percentages in the table below are based on our analysis of data from the US Department of State. It bears mentioning that in September of 2025 (not shown in the table), F-1 commencements fell further for Bangladesh (-69%), Nepal (-96%), Nigeria (-33%), and Pakistan (-9%) compared with September 2024.

In the UK, the following chart from HESA shows the dramatic drop-off in Indian (turquoise) and Nigerian (navy blue) commencements between 2023/24 and 2024/25: -13% and -33%, respectively. Over the span of two years (2022/23 to 2024/25), the declines were even more serious: -33% for India (126,580 to 94,955) and -132% for Nigeria (53,790 to 23,160).

In Canada, new student arrivals (from all nationalities) fell from 208,750 in 2024 to 115,120 in 2025. In January to April 2026 compared with the same period in 2025, arrivals were down -73% to about 200,000. There is no publicly available government information for specific markets, but the Times of India reports that between January and August 2025, Canada issued just 9,955 new study permits to Indian students.

In Australia, overall commencements fell by about -15% between 2024 and 2025, but this decline was concentrated in sectors other than higher education (the number of new international students in Australian universities edged up slightly in that time period). There was more of a mixed bag of commencement trends for the Key Five than in Canada, the UK, and US. Between 2024 and 2025, Indian and Pakistani commencements fell by -3.5% and -33%, respectively, while Nepal was up +33.5% and Bangladesh +33%.

The implications will stretch beyond international education

Our Key Five markets – Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Nigeria, and Pakistan – can be viewed as roughly representative of what is happening to mobility influences and flows between the Global South and Big Four destinations. They serve to show how immigration policies (and/or policy effects) in the Big Four are affecting demand from top non-EU markets. These policies, especially if they stretch on in time, could lead to:

• An intensification of existing challenges for the operations of hundreds of universities, colleges, and schools across the Big Four. Those institutions are often highly reliant on international student tuition amid declining domestic enrolments and/or public funding. Chinese commencements (which, for decades, were an important source of overall growth) are falling, and emerging markets in Asia and Africa have helped to mitigate the impact.

• Alternative destinations gaining a greater share of the world’s internationally mobile students (this is already happening – see From the Big Four to the Big Fourteen for background).



• A decline in the economic contribution of international education in the Big Four.



• A weakening of innovation and productivity in Big Four economies. India, in particular, contributes a large volume of STEM students and workers to Western nations.



• An erosion of the soft power of the Big Four in the Global South.

Methodological note

Data analyses are based on statistics from:

• The Australian
• (IRCC)
• The UK’s (HESA)
• The in the US

For additional information, please see:

• “UK: International student numbers fall for second year, especially in postgraduate programmes“
• “UK: Sponsored study visa issuances down, rejection rates up, and more“
• “There are more international students in the US than ever in 2025, but commencements are declining“
• “Visa rejections climb in the US for international students from key markets including India“
• “New international student permit approvals for Canada fell below COVID levels in 2025“
• “Australia: Multiple data indicators signal further declines ahead for international student numbers“
• “Australia: Latest enrolment data challenges the government’s assertion of stability for international education this year“

The post What is happening to student mobility flows between the Global South and Global North?  appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

Those policies were introduced to limit the number of new international students coming into the country after years of double-digit growth. But they overshot their target: far fewer students have come to Canada since 2024 than the government predicted. The confusing rollout of each new rule reduced international students’ confidence in the benefits of applying to Canadian institutions.

However, a significant policy reversal in November 2025 appears to have (1) sparked new interest in Canada, and (2) improved Canadian institutions’ potential to recruit international students in the current immigration context.

Dramatic increase in search interest

Keystone Education Group says that in December 2025, there was a +55% year-over-year increase in international student searches for Canada on its platform – a major change after two years of decline.

The turning point for the rebound was the government’s 6 November 2025 announcement that master’s and doctoral-level students would be removed from the 2026 cap on new international enrolments.

Incoming postgraduate students no longer need a Provincial Attestation Letter (PAL) for a study permit, and they are now permitted to bring their families with them. Canadian immigration (IRCC) processes those students and families’ applications together, eliminating any uncertainty about whether partners/dependent children will have to wait longer than students for a visa decision.

Keystone’s data also shows an uptick in master’s-level interest. In October 2025, searches for this level were down by -6% compared with October 2024. Then in November, they grew by +28%. Following that, there were sustained, monthly increases:

• +55% in December 2025
• +50% in January 2026
• +21% in February 2026
• +45% in March 2026

Keystone says this pattern suggests “a structural shift in student interest, not a momentary spike.”
Mark Bennett, VP of Research and Insight at Keystone, says:

“Prospective students react clearly and often very consistently to policy changes, and our search data is a great way of tracking that. What’s important here is that it’s the relative calm and clarity that seems to be having a positive effect on Canadian interest. Audiences who may have been struggling to understand Canada’s position on international education are responding to a clearer signal here.”

More evidence of an upturn

Findings from IDP’s most recent Emerging Futures survey, EF9, also show that Canada is regaining popularity. As the following chart illustrates, Australia (+10%), Canada (+7%), and “other” destinations (+9%) gained significant traction this year as destinations students are considering. This is in contrast to lower interest for the UK (-3%) and especially the US (-9%). The comparison is the data from EF9 (conducted in March and April 2026) versus data from EF7 (February 2025).

Will Canada’s momentum continue?

International students’ growing interest in Canada this year comes amidst a more beneficial external and internal environment than in 2024 and 2025.

External factors include:

• Significantly lower interest in the US given the second Trump administration’s immigration policy direction;
  
• More cautious recruitment on the part of UK universities given strict new compliance thresholds (including a requirement that institutions maintain a visa refusal rate of less than 5% to avoid sanctions).

Internal factors include:

• The postgraduate exemption from the cap;
  
• The ability of postgraduates to bring their families;
  
• Greater policy stability, which leads to (1) more confidence among international prospects, and (2) improved ability of institutions and agents to advise students given less confusion and volatility;
  
• More clarity on which programmes are eligible for the Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP);
  
• Higher visa approval rates for university programmes: according to IRCC data, undergraduate approvals rose from a 22% share of all approvals in 2024 to 35% in 2025, and at the postgraduate level, the jump was from 18.5% in 2024 to 30% in 2025;
  
• Last but not least – more targeted recruitment strategies by Canadian institutions.

The question of whether or not Canada can regain its footing as a preferred leading destination depends especially on the internal factors above – including policy stability.

For additional background, please see:

• “New international student permit approvals for Canada fell below COVID levels in 2025“
• “Canada: Government audit finds impact of international student cap far greater than expected“
• “Canada’s foreign enrolment has fallen by nearly 300,000 students over the last two years“
• “Canada announces international student cap numbers for 2026 and updated programme guidance“

The post New data provides early signals that Canada’s popularity as a study destination is on the rise appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

These trends are highlighted in results from the most recent by NAFSA, Oxford Test of English, and Studyportals. The survey asked respondents from over 254 universities across 36 countries about new international enrolments in the January–March 2026 intake; perceived barriers to enrolling students; and recruitment strategies.

The research found that universities in the Big Four are struggling with policy-induced enrolment pressures, but it also revealed that they are adapting recruitment strategies for their current context. Edwin van Rest, CEO of Studyportals, commented: “Universities that are agile, proactive and supportive of students are much better positioned to absorb visa disruption and sustain enrolment.”

91ɬ�� the research findings

The survey sample was heavily weighted towards the US, with 149 universities from the US compared with 39 in Europe, 24 in the UK, 13 in Canada, 9 from Australia, and 9 from the Asia-Pacific region (excluding Australia). In all, about three-quarters of responding universities were in the Big Four. For this reason, the regional breakdowns in the survey report are especially valuable.

There was also a Global Enrolment Benchmark Survey wave in January to March 2025. While apples-to-apples comparisons between the early-2025 and early-2026 waves cannot be made because of the waves’ slightly different samples, broad trends are definitely apparent.

New undergraduate enrolments

As shown in Chart 1 below, 69% of Canadian institutions reported fewer undergraduate students in the January 2026 intake. Considered alongside the 82% that reported a drop in the Q1 2025 survey wave, this marks two years of severe contraction.

In Q1 2026, 62% of US universities welcomed fewer new undergraduate students, a greater proportion than the 48% reporting the same in Q1 2025. This suggests that recruitment challenges have intensified in the US over the past year.

The undergraduate enrolment situation in Australia and the UK appears less dire. Under half of Australian (44%) institutions reported a falloff, and just as many (44%) said they had welcomed more new international students. The picture was more balanced in the UK, with 42% saying commencements were down, 37% reporting stability, and 21% enrolling more new students.

Meanwhile, Asian and European institutions are faring very well. Fully 82% of Asian institutions saw more new undergraduate students in Q1 2026 than in Q1 2025, and none of them reported drops. In Europe, almost half (47%) of responding universities reported a year-over-year increase, which is nearly double the proportion reporting a decline (25%).

Graduate trends

As shown in Chart 2 (below), around two-thirds of Australian, British, and American universities reported lower international postgraduate commencements in January 2026. The 2026 trend is worse for British institutions than in 2025, when only half said commencements were down, but it is stable in the US.

Canadian institutions are grappling with further deterioration at the postgraduate level in 2026. Fully 8 in 10 (80%) institutions reported declines (up from 71% in Q1 2025), and none reported increases.

Meanwhile, over half of Asian universities (55%) reported postgraduate commencement gains, as did 43% of European institutions.

Significant differences in Q1 2025 and Q1 2026 survey results

Chart 3 (below) shows the difference in average reported commencements between Q1 2025 and Q1 2026. European and Asian institutions welcomed considerably more new students in Q1 2026, especially at the bachelor’s level. Masters’ commencements were down significantly in Australia. In Canada and the US, intakes at both levels worsened considerably. Canadian undergraduate programmes were particularly affected, while in the US, the most severe reduction was at the master’s level. While less pronounced than in North America, a downward trend is also evident in the UK at both levels.

The most pressing issues

An overwhelming majority of respondents in the Big Four cited restrictive policies as the biggest obstacle they face (Chart 4 below). The full Australian sample (100%) picked this option, as did 84% in both Canada and the US and 71% in the UK. Policies were also the top challenge in Europe, but only 59% chose this response option.

In Asia, the top three cited issues did not include policies at all. Instead, cost of study/living, English-proficiency requirements, and academic requirements were the main challenges for Asian institutions.

What lies ahead

More than 4 in 10 universities in Australia, Canada, and the UK are planning budget cuts in the next 12 months, with over a third saying the same in the US (Chart 5 below). Close to a quarter of institutions in Australia and Canada are also planning to cut staff.

The relatively supportive policy environments in which Asian and European institutions are recruiting are reflected in their plans. Fully 64% of Asian institutions have more aggressive enrolment goals, as do 31% in Europe. In Asia, more than half (55%) intend to use more AI in their operations, and 26% of European institutions do as well. The mindset is clearly one of growth, while Big Four universities have their hands full with managing tough policy contexts and associated budget and staff cuts.

Across the board, however, institutions see diversification as a necessity this year (the most cited sample-wide priority at 37%).

Sector resilience and top strategies

The top strategies being used by universities to boost international enrolments are highlighted in Chart 6, below. Introducing new programmes; diversifying/expanding geographically; executing strong branding/marketing; and offering financial incentives and scholarships were the most cited institution-led initiatives.

In addition, a notable proportion of universities reported that they had introduced January start dates to “manage visa unpredictability and to capture students who would otherwise defer or drop out of the cycle.” The report notes:

“One global recruitment calendar rarely works well for all markets. Understanding demand by origin country can help to prioritise marketing and recruitment activities. Certain countries show a notably stronger preference for the January to March intake than their peers elsewhere.”

Of the Q1 2026 findings, Dr Fanta Aw, Executive Director and CEO of NAFSA, commented: “Despite an increasingly uncertain policy environment, the survey shows that institutions willing to innovate and adapt can still create meaningful pathways for student success and access …. Institutions can and must exercise greater agency to counter serious external forces.”

The study report adds:

“The right response to a shifting landscape is not to wait it out. It is to understand it better and move faster. Student demand for international education remains strong. The institutions that will capture it are the ones that treat uncertainty not as a reason to pause, but as a reason to think differently.”

For additional background, please see:

• “From the Big Four to the Big Fourteen”
• “Canada and the US are losing international student enrolments to Europe and Asia”
• “The four key trends that will shape international student mobility for the next decade”

The post Universities urged to focus on “factors they can control” as policy settings depress international student enrolments in the Big Four appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.