• Considering a US$100,000+ fee for post-study Optional Practical Training (OPT) placements. The OPT work stream is among US universities’ top competitive strengths when recruiting talented international students, and research shows that more than half of international students would not choose the US if they could not access it.



• Applying greater scrutiny to Curricular Practical Training (CPT) placements, as articulated in two broadcast memos issued by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement department (ICE) on and . CPT allows a student (domestic or international) offered by a sponsoring employer through a co-operative agreement with the student’s school.

In the memos, ICE says that the Student and Visa Exchange Programme (SEVP) is showing an uptick in “CPT authorisations that do not meet regulatory requirements, specifically those not constituting an integral part of an established curriculum.” The insinuation here is that some institutions are promoting CPT as a general work route rather than as an essential curriculum requirement. The department warns: “If SEVP suspects that school officials are abusing CPT to create work opportunities rather than academic studies, they may be subject to additional scrutiny and action from SEVP and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), to include potential withdrawal of the school’s SEVP certification.”

The department cautions: “In any instance where an elective course is optional, making the CPT optional, the integral and required aspects of CPT would not be met … [CPT should be authorised only] if its absence would make the attainment of a degree an impossibility.”

The power of rhetoric

The State Department has neither imposed the US$100,000 OPT fee nor amended the CPT programme through law. However, the department is clearly communicating its concern around both programmes, and this is serving a two-fold rhetorical purpose:

• To warn prospective international students that access to work in the US is far from certain for them;
• To discourage universities from linking academic programmes with work routes in their promotional or operational activities.

Most universities are pausing their authorisation of elective CPT programmes while continuing their curriculum-linked CPT. Even though the memos are, as Carnegie Mellon has called them, “extra-regulatory,” they carry enforceable actions. If a university were be seen to be abusing the CPT system, it could have its SEVP certification removed and would thus be barred from enrolling international students.

Even though the guidance will be a concern for all universities and colleges, the cautions from ICE may be especially aimed at a small group of US institutions that are colloquially known as “” universities, and where the promotion of work-integrated learning via CPT placements is . The critique that attaches to such institutions is essentially that they are over-promoting or overusing CPT, and providing a mechanism for students to bridge visa status while they remain in the US in the hopes of transitioning to an H-1B visa or otherwise preserving their ability to work in the country.

A layered approach

A potential OPT fee and CPT warnings are just two layers of the Trump administration’s mission to limit opportunities for international students in the US. On 15 September, the new rule replacing Duration of Status (D/S) with an Admit-Until-Date (AUD) system comes into force. For those needing background on the importance of this change, we have covered this extensively over the summer, including in this article.  

The imminent end of D/S has created additional uncertainty for US universities attempting to update systems and advise students, and it appears to have already dampened demand for study in the US. International enrolments declined in 2025, especially in graduate programmes.

Graduate programmes “in crisis”

In July 2026, reported on the effects of the Trump administration’s approach to immigration and to higher education and science in general:

• “Cornell University enrolled 209 fewer new grad students last year, with declines across nearly all of its schools.
• Michigan State University paused admissions to most of its advanced programs in the humanities for a year to assess them for “long-term sustainability.”
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been shaken by a 20% drop in the federally funded research that made its graduate programs into an innovation powerhouse.”

Bloomberg interviewed Chevelle Newsome, president of the Council of Graduate Schools, who said that graduate schools are in a “crisis response” mode that “will take decades to recover from.”

Perception influences behaviours

For most research universities, restricting CPT as per ICE’s guidance is not a big deal. At prominent institutions such as UCLA, less than a quarter of international students participate in CPT – a fraction compared with the number participating in OPT. But what is a big deal is that international students are hearing that both OPT and CPT are under greater scrutiny. The government is creating a perception that work opportunities in the US are diminishing without even having to pass laws to that effect.

There are important developments on the horizon that aim to counter that perception by curbing the government’s ability to implement more restrictive policy. For example, NAFSA and seven other educational and business organisations have filed a complaint to halt the implementation of the fixed-term admission period for international students and other visitors.

The consortium is challenging the legality of the rule and has also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that aims to prevent the rule from coming into effect. The request for an injunction will be heard in court in early September.

In addition, the upcoming mid-term elections (3 November 2026) may provide for some further balance in the US system. Amid rapidly deteriorating approval ratings for President Trump, that the mid-terms will return control of the House of Representatives to the Democrats. This would give the House more ability to counter executive action from the White House, including those concerning education and immigration.

Key developments for the new academic year

As of this writing on 3 September 2026:

• CPT: The Department of Homeland Security says, “Nothing about [CPT] regulations has changed. However, schools and employers should consider themselves on notice: under President Trump, abuse of this generous system will no longer be tolerated.”
• OPT: A new rule on OPT was on the agenda for 2026 but is now slated for publication in February 2027. A $100,000 OPT participation fee is under discussion, but it has not transitioned to the proposal phase.
• Duration of Status: Duration of Status (D/S) will be replaced by Admit-Until-Date (AUD) on 15 September unless a preliminary injunction is delivered before then. Current international students who have not returned to the US before that date will be subject to AUD despite first enrolling under Duration of Status terms. 

For additional background, please see:

• “US Department of State issued 23% fewer study visas to international students in 2025”
• “Updated: US Department of Homeland Security publishes rule to end Duration of Status for international students“
• “US coalition files lawsuit to challenge rule ending Duration of Status admissions for international students“
• “Report: US considering a $100,000 fee for Optional Practical Training” 

The post US government warns universities to limit their authorisation of Curricular Practical Training work placements appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

China and India

US colleges’ top two markets, China and India, saw steep declines of -28% and -57%, respectively. This has massive implications: For years, Chinese and Indian students have composed more than half of the total international student body in the US. Many colleges remain incredibly dependent on the continued flow of these students into their programmes despite efforts to recruit across a wider range of countries.

Diversification interrupted

To complicate matters, diversification is becoming more difficult because students in several growth markets are banned from entering the US (e.g., Nigeria) or are experiencing high visa rejection rates (e.g., Ghana and Nepal). It is no coincidence that:

• Visa issuances to Ghanaian and Nepali students dropped by -52% and -55%, respectively, in 2025 compared with 2024;
• The CommonApp platform (which receives a large number of all international applications to US colleges) registered fewer applications from Asian and African students, respectively, for 2025/26 programmes. The percentage drop was -34% for applications from Ghana.

Slow visa processing is also hitting the applications pipeline and causing stress for institutions and students alike.

The importance of the Indian decline

The huge drop in Indian visa issuances is particularly difficult for US graduate/STEM programmes. The number of Indian students pursuing graduate degrees is the number in undergraduate programmes.

Trends for India have been worrisome for some time. For example:

• More than 6 in 10 (61%) Indian students were rejected for a visa in the US in 2025;
• The vast majority (61%) of institutions participating in the survey for the IIE’s 2026 Spring Snapshot on International Educational Exchange said Indian application volumes had declined.

The decelerating trend for India will almost certainly continue. A new rule from the Trump administration abolishes the decades-old Duration of Status (D/S) system that among other things, allowed students to progress from F-1 academic studies to the Optional Practical Training (OPT) work stream. The new system requires students to ask for a visa extension from immigration authorities after they have been in the US for four years, with no guarantee they will be approved. Virtually all students will need an extension to participate in post-study OPT since it happens after the completion of four years of study.

A total of in 2024/25 – accounting for . The end of D/S – if it happens, since plaintiffs including NAFSA are now challenging this in court – will remove a key driver of Indian student mobility to the US.

The following chart was created by International Data & Recruitment Strategist Dave Amor, who posted it on LinkedIn. Mr Amor illustrates the decline of total F-1 visa issuances in the past year – and the extreme drop for the Indian market.

Broad implications

Earlier this month, based on the application trends reported by US colleges in the Institute of International Education’s (IIE) Spring Snapshot survey. NAFSA projects that there will be up to 111,000 fewer international students at US higher education institutions in 2026/27, resulting in close to US$3.4 billion in lost revenue and nearly 40,000 job losses. 

For additional background, please see:

• “Visa delays and policy uncertainty projected to reduce foreign enrolment in the US by more than 100,000 students this fall“
• “Decline in Indian demand a major factor in softer outlook for foreign enrolment in US higher education in 2026/27“

The post US Department of State issued 23% fewer study visas to international students in 2025 appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

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.

A preliminary injunction is a formal request asking a court to issue a temporary order early in a lawsuit – before the case is fully decided – to require someone to do something, or, as in in this case, to stop doing something. The goal of this filing is to compel the government to halt its implementation of the rule replacing D/S with a fixed visa permission of up to four years. After the limit is reached, students and visitors must apply for an extension to US immigration authorities. The final rule is meant to come into effect on 15 September 2026.

Parties to the legal challenge are:

• NAFSA: Association of International Educators
• The Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration
• The Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts (AICUM)
• The American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
• Graduate Labor Organization, AFT Local 6516 (GLO)
• International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)
• United Auto Workers Local 2322
• The NewsGuild-CWA

“Ending Duration of Status and imposing new limits on academic decision-making is a solution in search of a problem,” said NAFSA CEO and executive director Dr Fanta Aw. “The rule will severely undermine the contributions international students make to US campuses, economies, and national security. After carefully reviewing the final rule and the sweeping harm it will cause to our national interest, it is clear that litigation is warranted and necessary.”

McDermott Will & Schulte will represent the plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Background

The D/S system was in place for decades, and it allowed international students to stay in the US to complete their full academic programme as well as to gain three years of post-study work experience. For more background on what the end of D/S means for students, universities, and businesses, please see our comprehensive article here.

Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration says:

“This rule upends the longstanding Duration of Status framework that has allowed international students and scholars to pursue their educational programs while maintaining lawful status. By placing time limits that do not align with actual program lengths or students’ educational needs and shifting crucial academic decisions from institutions to immigration officials, the rule will disrupt educational pathways, impose significant new burdens on colleges and universities, and make the United States less competitive as the premier destination for global talent. We are going to court to protect international students and scholars and to defend our member institutions’ ability to educate, train, and retain them.”

What is the basis for the challenge?

The consortium argues: “The final rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because DHS failed to adequately assess its costs and benefits, meaningfully respond to public comments, consider less burdensome alternatives, or justify the rule based on its stated objectives. It also alleges that DHS provided an inadequate public comment period and exceeded its statutory authority.”

“The United States once again is breaking the law for its own political purposes and, in doing so, is hurting Americans and American enterprise,” argues AFT President Randi Weingarten. “And it’s using international students – who we’ve welcomed here to help us – as its pawns. America is a leader in cutting-edge research because generations of scientists from every corner of the globe have been free to pursue difficult questions, challenge conventional wisdom, collaborate openly and publish their findings – without political interference. This latest assault on knowledge by the Trump administration arbitrarily limits how long international scholars have to complete their studies and risks turning a welcoming environment for students into a hostile one. We stand united with our higher education members, international and American alike, so they can continue to make US colleges and universities the envy of the world.”

What is at stake?

The plaintiffs explain: “These changes will create significant uncertainty and administrative burdens for international students and exchange visitors and the institutions that support them. They will also interfere with academic decision-making, disrupt students’ educational and professional plans, and undermine the ability of U.S. colleges and universities to attract and retain global talent.”

Robert McCarron, president and CEO of the Association of Independent Colleges & Universities in Massachusetts, comments:

“More than 80,000 international students come to Massachusetts to pursue higher education, adding vibrancy and innovation to our campuses and often founding startups in Massachusetts. These students and researchers drive innovation, pursue life-changing research, and create more than $4 billion annually in economic impact in Massachusetts. The litigation seeks to ensure that such profound changes to the rules governing international students and others comply with applicable legal requirements and reaffirms that Massachusetts continues to welcome talented students and researchers from across the globe.”

What happens next?

Legal observers expect that the court will take up the coalition’s request for emergency relief, which, if successful, would prevent the rule from coming into effect on 15 September.

The immigration law firm Fragomen notes in its guidance that, “Prospects for the lawsuit are uncertain, and employers and foreign nationals should continue to prepare for the scheduled implementation of the new regulation on September 15 in the event the plaintiffs’ efforts to obtain an emergency stay are unsuccessful.”

For additional background, please see:

• “Updated: US Department of Homeland Security publishes rule to end Duration of Status for international students”

The post US coalition files lawsuit to challenge rule ending Duration of Status admissions for international students 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.

Based on institutional responses in IIE’s , the estimate is for a 9.5% decline in overall foreign enrolment in the US in fall 2026. This could result in . In economic terms, that translates to up to US$3.4 billion in lost spending and 39,000 jobs affected.

“The projections underscore what we’ve long warned,” said Fanta Aw, Executive Director and CEO of NAFSA. “US policy and regulations affect where international students plan to invest their future—and their decisions carry significant short- and long-term consequences for US society and economy, All Americans lose when international students and scholars are driven to more welcoming countries.”

Where is this coming from?

The analysis points to three major factors behind the projected decline in enrolment for 2026/27: reduced or diverted demand; process and policy around student visas; and policy uncertainty.

There are a number of indicators of declining demand for study in the US this year, whether those students are simply deferring their study plans or choosing an alternate destination. First, recent findings from the highlight that the international pool of doctoral candidates shrunk by -21% for 2026/27, a trend that led to an overall decline in international PhD admissions of -17%. Meanwhile, says that international applications filed via its college admissions platform are down -9% for the coming academic year. And, as we reported recently, nearly two-thirds of respondents to IIE’s Spring Snapshot Survey are expecting enrolment declines for 2026/27.

Those trends are no doubt influenced by a series of underlying issues around student visa processing. An expanded ban on travel to the US affecting citizens from 39 countries, including Nigeria, has been in place since 1 January 2026. While there has not been an outright pause on visa processing this year, the State Department’s prioritisation of visa processing for FIFA World Cup ticket holders traveling to the US supplanted the historical norm of prioritising student applicants during the peak processing months over spring and summer. Making the situation even more challenging, there are widespread reports of significant processing delays and in India, China, and Europe.

Finally, both announced and anticipated rule changes are combining to create additional uncertainty for international students in the US this year. A new rule will come into effect on 15 September 2025 to replace the longstanding “Duration of Status” framework with a fixed Admit-Until-Date (AUD). The new AUD mechanism sets a maximum limit for which a student visa can be granted, and requires continuing students to apply for an extension with US immigration officials. This, says NAFSA, creates “significant planning uncertainty for prospective students, particularly those considering longer-degree programmes,” and an issue which is compounded by “the current administration’s continued warnings that it intends to reform the Optional Practical Training programme.”

The need for speed

“Forfeiting the US position as the top destination for global talent hurts students, hospitals, research laboratories, the economy – and carries the real risk that the next big invention will not happen on US soil,” adds Dr Aw. “We urge the administration and Congress to take swift action to ensure international student contributions continue to benefit American ingenuity, economic prosperity, and national security.”

In order to ease the projected decline for 2026/27, NAFSA is urging the US administration to take the following steps.

• Prioritise processing for all F and M visa applicants as well as for those pursuing a J visa for exchange in the US;
• Exempt students and exchange visitors from the current travel ban “while maintaining background checks and vetting required for visa issuance”; and
• Preserve Optional Practical Training for foreign graduates in the US.

For additional background, please see:

• “Decline in Indian demand a major factor in softer outlook for foreign enrolment in US higher education in 2026/27“
• “Updated: US Department of Homeland Security publishes rule to end Duration of Status for international students“
• “US regulatory agenda for 2026 aims to end ‘duration of status and introduce Optional Practical Training and H-1B reforms“
• “US extends travel ban, Nigeria now included on ‘restricted’ list“

The post Visa delays and policy uncertainty projected to reduce foreign enrolment in the US by more than 100,000 students this fall appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

The hefty fee would apply to post-study Optional Practical Training (OPT) placements. Post-study OPT is the work stream that allows students who complete a minimum four-year bachelor’s degree to gain one to three years of work experience related to their field of study, and it often serves as a bridge from F-1 student status to at least three years in a formal position with a US employer on an H-1B visa. Three-year OPT is reserved for students with STEM degrees.

More than 294,000 students participated in OPT in 2024/25 – representing about one in four international students in the US. This was a 21% increase over the previous year.

Any move to limit access to OPT will upend foreign students’ estimation of the return on investment for study in the US. A recent Chronicle of Higher Education survey found that 8 in 10 international students would not choose to study in the US if they could not access OPT.

Nothing is certain yet

A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson confirmed that the fee is under discussion, but it stressed in a statement to the paper that “no policy should be considered final until it is formally announced.” It is not clear yet who would have to pay the $100,000 OPT fee – students, universities, or employers.

OPT under fire

For decades, international students were permitted to stay in the US for as long as their study journey required, including three years of OPT participation, under a rule called Duration of Status, or D/S.

But a 2025 administration proposal to put fixed limits on international students’ legal status in the US will become a rule in September 2026. International students will have to leave after four years unless they submit, and are approved for, an extension by immigration officials.

This makes a potential $100,000 OPT fee even more off-putting to international students. Not only will they need to submit a request to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to stay in the US for longer than their length of their degree – with no guarantee they will be approved – but the $100,000 fee would make it even less likely that they would (1) be hired (if the fee were levied on employers) or (2) afford to be hired (if students themselves had to pay the fee).

If at first you don’t succeed …

It is quite possible that the government views a steep OPT price tag as a satisfactory equivalent to its September 2025 proclamation requiring employers to pay a $100,000 fee to sponsor a foreign worker for an H-1B visa. That ruling was later blocked in court. The administration submitted an appeal to reverse the decision, but a federal court rejected the appeal on 24 July 2026.

If the administration were to push through the $100,000 fee for OPT submissions, it could achieve the same goal as the as-yet unsuccessful H-1B fee of blocking a huge proportion of international graduates and skilled foreign workers from employment in the US.

Brain drain from the US is already happening

The potential for brain drain is real. The WSJ notes: “Advocates contend that without OPT, most international students would be forced to leave the country immediately after graduation, pushing them to take the skills they gained at American universities to foreign markets.”

Destinations such as Germany, France – and the US’s great-power rivals China and Russia – are already benefitting from lower student demand for the US. All these countries – and several more alternative destinations – are building their foreign enrolment at the same time as new international student commencements in the US (as well as in Australia, Canada, and the UK) decline.

The impact on universities and employers

International students’ contributions are vital to STEM-based sectors and to US innovation in general. For example, a 2025 Silicon Valley Index report found that 66% of technology workers in the region are foreign born.

The potential impact on Indian and Chinese enrolments

If enough Indian and Chinese students decide to stay away from the US, it could be a devastating revenue hit for many US colleges. More than half (53%) of all international students in academic programmes or OPT in the US are Indian or Chinese.

Doctoral-degree-granting institutions would be especially affected. Consider:

• Eight in 10 Indian students studying in the US in 2025 – and nine in 10 Chinese students – are enrolled at a doctoral college.
• Of 57,800 PhDs granted to all students in the US in 2023, 19,400 (34%) were awarded to F-1 international students, nearly half of whom (44%) were Chinese or Indian.
• Chinese and Indian students received nearly one-sixth (15%) of all PhDs awarded by US institutions in 2023.

It isn’t too dramatic to say that R&D innovation in the US would be significantly affected by a major fall-off in Indian and Chinese demand.

The Indian and Chinese flow of OPT students to US employers would also be severely impacted:

• Of all Indian students in the US in 2025, 40% were in OPT. This represents a near doubling of the proportion the previous year.
• Of all Chinese students in the US in 2025, 23% were in OPT.

Change is coming

Whether or not a $100,000 OPT fee comes into being, what is certain is that the Trump administration is currently considering new rules for OPT. There are few details at present, but new OPT rules are slated for introduction in February 2027. The government has indicated only that it will “amend existing regulations to address fraud and national security concerns, protect US workers from being displaced by foreign nationals, and enhance the Student and Exchange Visitor Program’s capacity to oversee the program.”

Lawsuits highly likely

Multiple lawsuits arose to fight the H-1B fee, and the fee has been declared unlawful. As of this writing, US employers do not have to pay the fee to hire international students or foreign skilled workers.

Litigation is already in process to contest the fixed admission rule set to come into force on 15 September 2026.

As reported by Forbes, “legal consultations have left experts questioning the administration’s lawful authority to impose a $100,000 OPT fee.”

For additional background, please see:

• “US regulatory agenda for 2026 aims to end ‘duration of status’ and introduce Optional Practical Training and H-1B reforms”

The post Report: US considering a $100,000 fee for Optional Practical Training 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.