British universities are again being asked to do the Home Office’s risk-management for it. Over the past few weeks, a growing number of institutions have paused or curtailed recruitment from Pakistan and Bangladesh two of the UK’s largest student markets citing concern that high visa refusal rates could put their sponsorship licences at risk.
Universities insist this is compliance, not prejudice. Yet for applicants who have done everything asked of them academic preparation, financial evidence, credibility interviews, years of planning, the practical effect is the same: doors closing without an individual hearing.
What has changed and why universities are reacting now
The trigger is the Home Office’s tightened Basic Compliance Assessment (BCA), the annual test that determines whether a university can keep issuing Confirmations of Acceptance for Studies (CAS). From September 2025, the maximum permissible visa refusal rate for a sponsor has been cut to below 5%, down from 10%, alongside higher enrolment and course-completion benchmarks.
Falling short is no minor administrative matter. A sponsor that fails BCA metrics can be placed on an action plan or, in serious cases, lose the student sponsor licence entirely, which effectively ends international recruitment for a period.
At the same time, ministers have sharpened their public language around abuse of legal routes, pointing to rising asylum claims from some students and reiterating that study visas must not become a backdoor to settlement. This political pressure, paired with unforgiving compliance thresholds, has created a powerful incentive for universities especially those with tighter margins to avoid any cohort likely to produce refusals.
The pattern of restrictions
According to recent reporting, at least nine universities have imposed limits on applicants from high-risk countries, with Pakistan and Bangladesh at the centre of the current wave. Actions have ranged from pauses for specific intakes to near-blanket suspensions:
- University of Chester has suspended recruitment from Pakistan until autumn 2026 after a spike in refusals.
- University of Wolverhampton has stopped accepting undergraduate applicants from Pakistan and Bangladesh.
- University of East London has paused recruitment from Pakistan.
- Sunderland and Coventry have suspended recruitment from both Pakistan and Bangladesh.
- London Metropolitan University has confirmed it halted recruitment from Bangladesh after a disproportionate share of refusals.
Other universities under Home Office action plans have adopted temporary freezes or tighter screening for upcoming intakes.
Why Pakistan and Bangladesh are bearing the brunt
The logic is bluntly numerical. Reported refusal rates for the year to September 2025 were around 18% for Pakistan and 22% for Bangladesh far above the new 5% ceiling. If a university recruits heavily from either market, it risks breaching BCA thresholds even where the majority of students are genuine.
The government’s achievements and the policy overreach
It is important to acknowledge what the government has sought to do. The earlier decision to restrict dependants on most taught postgraduate student visas contributed to a significant fall in net migration and responded to public concern about the rapid growth in family-linked arrivals. That intervention had a clear, targeted rationale.
But the present approach is different in nature. Instead of addressing misconduct through sharper enforcement against fraudulent agents or dubious providers, the Home Office has imposed blanket compliance metrics that transfer risk to universities. Predictably, universities are responding by shrinking recruitment from the very countries now deemed likely to produce refusals. The state has, in effect, outsourced immigration control to admissions teams.
The consequence is that risk is no longer assessed at applicant level, but at nationality level. That may not be discrimination in intent, but it functions like discrimination in outcome.
Genuine candidates are being hit hardest
The most troubling feature of this shift is who it harms. It is not the opportunist who knows how to game a system; those individuals will simply reroute to weaker institutions or different countries. The people being squeezed out are the compliant, well-prepared students those who have sat the tests, collected the bank statements, followed the timelines, paid deposits and demonstrated credible academic intent.
These students are, in every meaningful way, exactly the group the Student Route is designed to attract. Yet they are becoming collateral damage in a compliance exercise. When recruitment is paused late in the cycle, offers can be withdrawn after months of process, leaving families with sunk costs, disrupted academic plans and no real avenue to challenge the decision. For many, the issue is not refusal by the Home Office but exclusion by a university that never properly considered them.
This is what makes the current policy posture feel so unjust. The system is now structured so that the rule-followers carry the penalty for risk the state is unwilling to manage more intelligently. That is an irrational incentive, and it erodes confidence in the fairness of UK immigration decision-making.
The economic value being put at risk
There is also a hard-headed economic consequence that is being ignored. International students are not a marginal add-on to higher education; they are a financial pillar of the sector and a major contributor to local and national economies. They pay full international fees, rent privately, support transport networks and spend heavily in the towns and cities where they study. Their presence sustains university jobs and cross-subsidises teaching and research that benefit domestic students.
Students from Pakistan and Bangladesh are integral to that ecosystem. A lot of universities rely on these markets for stable enrolment and revenue. When such recruitment is choked off, universities lose income that keeps courses open and campuses running, while local economies lose consistent spending that supports landlords, small businesses and service employment.
This is the contradiction at the heart of the current policy drift. Britain wants the financial and intellectual benefits of inbound students but it is allowing compliance fear to push them away. For a country competing globally for talent, that is self-defeating.
A system drifting away from its purpose
The UK’s student visa route was designed to attract bright, ambitious people to world-class education, while giving providers the tools to sponsor responsibly. What we are now seeing is a system that bumps institutions towards the safest statistical outcome, even when it conflicts with fairness and with the UK’s long-term interests.
The dependent ban showed that the government can make targeted policy choices to manage migration without undermining the credibility of the student route. The current compliance reset, by contrast, is too blunt. It risks driving legitimate applicants away, weakening diversity on campus and pushing universities into a defensive posture that is at odds with their educational mission.
If Britain wants international students for the contribution they make to research, to classrooms and to the economy it must stop treating them as a compliance liability first and a public good second.
Follow us to stay updated on the latest UK immigration changes. With over 20 years of experience and a steadfast commitment to excellence, Morgan Smith Immigration is your trusted partner for all your immigration needs. Contact us today to learn more about how we can assist you with UK visa applications and provide tailored advice for your circumstances. For any enquiries or assistance, call us at 0203 959 3335 or email [email protected].
