A recent internal update from Australia’s Department of Home Affairs, quietly circulated through the PRISMS system, has sparked renewed debate within the international education community. The message was simple: evidence levels have been revised. Yet, as usual, the details behind these changes remain opaque — a hallmark of a system that many argue is showing its cracks.
⚠️ Unpublished Lists, Real Consequences
While no official evidence level list is ever publicly released, information shared within practitioner and agent networks indicates that certain countries have seen notable shifts. Reports suggest that Bangladesh and Sri Lanka may now sit at Level 1, while India, Nepal, Bhutan, Vietnam, and China have moved to Level 2. Meanwhile, Fiji, the Philippines, and Pakistan are reportedly listed under Level 3.
These shifts, though unconfirmed, carry major implications. A move from Level 3 to Level 2 can significantly reduce the paperwork and documentary burden on applicants — while a downgrade can make the path to study in Australia considerably harder.
📘 A Formula Few Understand
The formula that determines these evidence levels is, as many in the sector joke, “one of the great mysteries of the universe.” Even experienced education consultants and institutional representatives admit that the process lacks transparency. A single province’s data on visa outcomes can sway the standing of an entire country, sometimes unfairly penalising students for regional trends.
This lack of clarity, according to education leaders, undermines confidence in the system. As one senior voice in the sector noted, “It’s difficult to justify a model where diplomatic sensitivity takes precedence over transparency.”
📊 How Evidence Levels Work
For those new to the terminology, both education providers and student source countries are assigned evidence levels (1 to 3). The lower the level, the less documentation is needed for a visa application.
➡️ Level 1 means low risk — minimal documentation.
➡️ Level 2 suggests moderate scrutiny.
➡️ Level 3 denotes high risk — the strictest checks.
When a Level 3 country student applies to a Level 3 provider, their application faces far more rigorous assessment than a Level 1–Level 1 combination.
📈 The Bigger Picture
The purpose of evidence levels is to manage risk — particularly concerns about fraud, visa cancellations, and overstays. Yet, as critics point out, the current framework often punishes genuine students from high-risk countries while rewarding others based on outdated or incomplete data.
Some experts warn that the system’s opacity encourages “visa hopping” — where students enter Australia through low-risk universities and later transfer to less regulated providers. Without policy safeguards, such practices could undermine both fairness and quality in Australia’s education sector.
🔎 A System in Need of Transparency
Shifting evidence standards were designed to make the visa process more responsive to trends. But the lack of publicly available criteria, inconsistent communication, and apparent diplomatic caution have only deepened confusion. Until the methodology behind these changes is made public, every new update risks exposing not progress — but the fragility of a system struggling to balance integrity with accessibility.
For more information or personalized guidance, please contact Pathway Education. Our experts are here to assist you with your queries and provide the support you need.
