Post-Graduation Work Visas and Loopholes: Insights into Support Provision for International Graduates from the Perspectives of Migration Agents,Universities,and International Graduates

Abstract

Background: Major host countries of international students such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the US have introduced post-study work rights as a strategic policy to both enhance their destination attraction and support international students’ post-graduation work experiences. While this policy is generally welcomed by both host institutions and international students, little is known about the support mechanism for the growing cohort of international student graduates who stay in their countries of study on temporary graduate visas, especially in relation to major concerns such as post-graduation work, visa application, and migration pathways. Objective: This article fills an important gap in the existing literature. It aims to assess the role of universities in supporting their international alumni on temporary visas. Research Design: It is derived from a study that includes 50 interviews with university staff, agents, and international graduates. It uses positioning theory as a conceptual framework. Results: The findings of the study raise concerns about the scope of university advice. It reports loopholes which legitimize the practices of migration agents to the conditions that enable them to exercise their exclusive rights in providing work-migration nexus advice to international students and graduates, making this cohort vulnerable to exploitation of unethical agents. The study provides the evidence base to develop recommendations for related stakeholders in improving the post-graduation experiences of international student graduates who remain in the host countries on temporary visas.

Keywords

international graduates international students post-study work policy migration migration agents universities impacts temporary graduate visa post-study work rights

Introduction

The number of students crossing borders for education, particularly at the tertiary level, increased from 0.8 million in 1975 to 5.6 million in 2018 (OECD 2012; 2020). The race for global talent intensified in the 2000s with governments implementing regulations facilitating permanent residency for international student graduates (Kuptsch, 2005; Vincent-Lancrin, 2008) who were desired for their relative youth, language skills, qualifications, and understandings of the culture and norms of their host countries, which are important qualities to assist their integration into local labor markets (Hawthorne, 2010). However, direct pathways to permanent residency were increasingly tightened with many leading study destinations including Australia converging towards post-study work rights (Chew, 2019). The introduction of post-study work rights (PSWR) has been regarded as a strategic policy which mutually benefits international students and destination countries. It responds to international students’ aspirations to gain post-study work experiences and assists with host universities’ commitment to enhancing employability and employment outcomes for international alumni. The policy is also effective in helping host countries boost destination attraction and realize their enrollment targets (Berquist et al., 2019; Sá & Sabzalieva, 2018).

While PSWR continue to provide international students with the opportunity to live and work in their host countries after their studies, their residency is inherently temporary. Although these policies are not primarily designed to lead to permanent migration, they continue to play an important role in the decision making of international students. This is illustrated by the decrease of international student numbers in the UK and an estimated loss of GBP$1 billion in tuition revenue, after the UK government’s removal of PSWR in 2012 (Kaplan, 2019; Lomer, 2018). Further, research evidence suggests that there are several mismatches between the intended goals of the policy and the reality facing international graduates on temporary graduate visas, which hamper the effectiveness of the policy (Tran et al., 2019). Objective barriers include the temporary nature of the visa and the availability of jobs that fit the visa length (ibid). Additionally, barriers arise from a constrained labor market in the host country characterized by employers’ lack of understanding about the policy and preference for local citizens or permanent residents (Blackmore & Rahimi, 2019; Coffey et al., 2021; Tran et al., 2020a, 2020b). Other factors that impede temporary graduates’ employment opportunities include their lack of local work experiences and networks as well as lack of continuing support from universities for alumni employability development (Berquist et al., 2019). While these factors have been documented in the literature, little attention has been paid to the provision of advice and support for international students and alumni regarding temporary graduate visa application, employment, and migration. This article responds to this dearth in the literature by looking into the perspectives of international graduates, universities, and agents.

The article draws on interviews with international graduates, university representatives, education and migration agents in Australia. It assesses impacts of different sources of support and advice on international graduates on temporary graduate visas in Australia. The findings show a significant gap that inhibits the implementation of the PSWR policy in Australia which causes confusion and insecurity for international graduates and increases their vulnerability. The fact that only registered migration agents are legally permitted to provide migration advice, which precludes universities from this, inadvertently contributes to the vulnerability of international students and graduates to unethical practices of some migration agents. Many universities in Australia avoid providing advice related to temporary graduate visa (485 subclass) application and post-485 pathways for international graduates as the matter is deemed to be too sensitive and closely interrelated with migration issues. The findings reveal a tenuous relationship between universities, and migration agents in the international students’ post-study landscape. The study puts forward key recommendations for related stakeholders in enhancing the post-graduation experiences of international graduates who remain in the host countries on temporary visas.

Skilled Migration Pathways and Post-study Work Rights

In Australia, the introduction of PSWR and the Temporary Graduate 485 visa in 2013 was born from efforts to decouple the education-migration nexus based on recommendations from the Knight Review—a review ordered by the Australian Government in 2011 to assess the integrity, quality, and competitiveness of the international student visa program. This visa is adjudged to have positively impacted on international enrollments at the tertiary level particularly in postgraduate masters by coursework programs in accounting, IT and engineering (Hall, 2019).

The 485 visa has two streams, the Graduate Work stream and the Post-Study Work stream. While both streams permitted international students to live and work in Australia for a period after their studies, the main difference lays in the amount of time they could remain in Australia. Originally, the Graduate Work stream allowed vocational education and training (VET) graduates to remain in Australia for 18 months while the Post-Study Work stream allowed holders with a Bachelor, Masters or Doctorate degree to remain in the country for 2 –4 years. Further, applicants in the former stream were required to nominate an occupation on the Medium and Long-term Strategic Skills List and have their skills assessed to be in demand by the relevant assessing body while those in the latter were exempted from this (Department of Home Affairs, 2021). In November 2021, the government announced the extension of the Temporary Graduate visa from 2 to 3 years for Masters by coursework graduates and from 18 months to 2 years for VET graduates.

Migration is an important consideration in the decision-making of international students and the post-study work option is a significant factor when selecting their study destination. Nevertheless, research has shown that the post-study work experience can be less than ideal as employers in Australia (Blackmore et al., 2014), Canada (Flynn & Arthur, 2013), and the US (Monahan, 2018; Sangganjanavanich et al., 2011) are reluctant to employ international graduates due to concerns over their unfamiliarity with the local workplace culture and English proficiency. Employers are also particularly hesitant due to perceived complexities surrounding the temporary nature of post-study work visas despite its simplicity.

Migration Agents and Advice Provision About Visas, Study, and Migration

There appears to be a “black box” on how migration intermediaries interact with migration (Lindquist et al., 2012). However, there is a growing body of work that has identified the “ensemble of entrepreneurs, firms and services… motivated by financial gain, facilitate international mobility, settlement and adaptation” (Hernandez-Leon, 2012, p. 25) in the migration industry which comprises a range of actors such as travel agents, smugglers, traffickers, lawyers, and labor recruiters (Cranston et al., 2018). The international education sector also has a significant migration industry made up of education agents, university recruitment team, and other agencies (Beech, 2019) due to governments seeking out international students not only as a revenue source but also as a source for skilled migrants (Kuptsch, 2005). Despite the link between education and migration, research on the migration industry in international student migration is scant and largely focused on education agents attracting and mobilizing students to pursue overseas study (see Collins, 2012; Beech, 2019).

Nikula and Kivisto’s (2020) summary of the reliance on agents by education providers highlights how these intermediaries are an important cog in the international education industry. Agents are significant recruiters with one-third of first year international students in Australia, the US, and UK reported having engaged with one (Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, 2014). In Australia, the role of education agents is striking with approximately 75% of international enrollments in 2018 facilitated by one (Department of Education and Training, 2019). However, it is glaring that there is very little attention paid to migration agents given Australia’s “two-step” migration process (Hawthorne, 2010) which saw around 53% of all permanent migration places in 2018–19 granted to onshore temporary migrants. Of this group, about one in three was a former international student transitioning onto a Permanent Resident (PR) visa (Department of Home Affairs, 2019). The number of registered migration agents increased from under 2500 in 2000 and almost tripled to 7402 at June 2018 before declining to 7132 at June 2020 (Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority, 2014; 2018; 2020). The recent decrease attributed to the higher technical requirements implemented in early 2018 (Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority, 2020) is likely to see sustained decrease due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, the overall trend illustrates the growth of migration agents in an era which saw an increased emphasis on skilled migration and a proliferation of temporary visas (Hugo, 2014).

Analyzing international student migration beyond the stay-return framework highlights the range of intermediaries, with which international students could engage over time (Tran et al., 2019, 2021; Tran & Bui, 2019; Tran & Soejatminah, 2016; Tran & Vu, 2016). They include education agents, offshore agents, and registered migration agents. Education agents mobilize international students by selling international education with this relationship typically dissolving once the student arrives in the host country. Registered migration agents on the other hand have more complex functions through assisting with visa related applications and issues that arise around the time of the student’s graduation (see Beech, 2019; Khan, 2019). Further, education agents and registered migration agents as highlighted by Khan (2019), operate under different regulatory frameworks in Australia.

In Australia, the main instruments governing education agents are the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act 2000 and National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas 2018 (Australian Government, 2018). The National Code 2018 essentially places the onus on educational providers to ensure that their education agents “act ethically, honestly and in the best interest of overseas students” (Department of Education and Training, 2017, p. 1) with written agreements and a monitoring process being in place. On the other hand, migration agents are required to be registered with the Office of the Migration Agents Registered Authority (OMARA) who administers the Code of Conduct legislated to regulate their conduct (Department of Home Affairs, 2017). The Code establishes a standard required of a competent and responsible registered migration agent (Department of Home Affairs, 2017). The regulation of registered migration agents in contrast with education agents is tighter as they are required to have a legal practicing certificate or hold a Graduate Diploma in Australian Migration Law and Practice. Those with the latter are also required to pass a Capstone Assessment offered by the College of Law before they can register as a migration agent with OMARA. Annual renewals of their registrations are also required by completing Continuing Professional Development activities (Department of Home Affairs, 2020).

For international students (and broadly migrants on other visa subclasses) seeking immigration advice, OMARA advises consulting a registered migration agent as only a small number of people who are not registered with OMARA are exempt¹ (Department of Home Affairs, 2020). Unless also registered as a migration agent², education agents are not allowed to provide immigration assistance with the National Code 2018 (Part B—Standard 4.6.1) stating that education providers “must not accept students from an education agent if it knows or reasonably suspects the education agent to be providing migration advice, unless that education agent is authorized to do so under the Migration Act.” Despite these codes and regulatory frameworks, some education agents are known to engage in a range of questionable practices (see Nikula & Kivistö, 2020; Voigt-Graf & Khoo, 2004) which include providing immigration advice and promises of jobs in Australia (Baas, 2006; 2007). Similarly, some migration agents engage in unethical practices (see Groutsis et al., 2015) although most instances appearing to occur with offshore migration agents (see Velayutham, 2013; Khan, 2019). Nonetheless, the industry as a whole has its legitimacy questioned and suffers from public stigmatization (Khan, 2019). Another intermediary that should be considered part of the migration industry are international education providers who as Baas (2019, p. 229) notes, remain “…Strikingly absent...even if the education-migration entanglement has received considerable attention in recent years.” Baas’ (2015) research found that university recruiters and academics who embark on international roadshows found themselves regularly fielding questions relating to potential migration even though they knew they were not permitted to do so.

Power relations are highlighted through information asymmetries between educational providers and education agents (see Nikula, 2020) which perpetuates the information asymmetry between international students and education agents. It places international students in a vulnerable position and exposes them to exploitative migration intermediaries (Agunias, 2013). However, much of the literature on the (mal)practices of migration intermediaries related to international student migration appears to focus on those offshore. There is a knowledge gap in understanding the contemporary issues relating to the onshore migration intermediaries, particularly in the PSWR space where the link between education and migration is seemingly decoupled.

Positioning Theory as a Conceptual Framework

Positioning theory (Harré & Van Langenhove, 2010) is used as a conceptual framework to understand how different key players, including migration agents, university representatives, and international graduates, position themselves and are positioned by each other in relation to the provision of advice and support on post-graduation work and migration. Positioning theory involves “the study of the discursive processes by which people were ascribed, took up, refused, contested, and so on the rights and duties they found themselves with in the local social world” (Harré, 2012, p. 195). Positioning is the discursive practice where the social force of an action and the positions of people involved mutually determine one another with ascribed rights and duties to the participants that can be deliberate, inadvertent, presumptive, or taken for granted (Harré et al., 2009). Positionings can be identified through looking at the detail of the interaction, at what is said and done, and how people respond and make necessary inferences about rights and duties presumed by the participants (Barnes, 2004).

Positions are referred to as “a cluster of beliefs, some implicit and some explicit, as to the rights and duties proper to a person who was taken to have the ascribed attributes, or at least claimed to have them” (Harré, 2012, p. 194). They can change from one moment to the next, depending on the storylines constructed through which different speakers make meaning of their interaction. Fluid positionings are used by people involved in the discussions to cope with the situation where the initial positioning can be challenged. A change in positioning can alter the meaning of the actions people are taking and subsequently modify the storylines as they unfold in a discourse (Harré et al., 2009).

There are various forms of positionings including first-order and second order positioning, moral and personal positioning, self- and other-positioning, and tactic and intentional positioning (Harré & Van Langenhove, 2010). Focusing on internal positioning, Van Langenhove and Harré (1999) depicted four types of positioning determined by internal acceptance as self-positioning and external forces as other-positioning. They are (1) deliberate self-positioning where an individual wants to express their personal identity to try to achieve specific goals; (2) forced self-positioning that refers to someone taking on a position in a discursive discussion imposed by an external force; (3) deliberate positioning of others that occurs when an individual deliberately assigns someone a position without taking into account of whether the positioned one is present or not; and (4) forced positioning of others that takes place when someone intentionally positions someone else under an external force regardless of their absence or presence.

Positioning process takes place in a certain context constructed by moral orders which are referred to as “sets of rights and duties created by declarations with deontic powers” (Van Langenhove, 2017). Some moral orders are local and limited in time while others are more global and enduring. Van Langenhove (2017) documented different types of moral orders that affect positioning process including cultural, legal, and institutional moral orders. Cultural moral orders consist of the many rules, habits, and prescriptions that people take for granted, legal moral orders are a complex set of laws and legal rules that tell people what to do or not to do, and institutional moral orders are a whole set of rules by an organization that people have become a member to. These moral orders can be regarded as structure as they exist independently from the people involved. There are also conversational moral orders (created by the participants to a conversation) and personal moral orders (internal dialogues in which people can deliberate about what is right or wrong). All these moral orders interweave and create the moral space that surrounds people at all times and affects how people self-position and other-position in social interaction (Harré & Van Langenhove, 2010).

In this study, the interpretation of the interactions between international students/graduates, migration agents, and universities were drawn from different positionings that these key actors were engaged in. The analysis takes into account the key factors, rules, and regulations that affect the positioning process and positions that ascribed different rights and duties to these actors.

Methodology

This article draws from a 3-year study about the experiences of international graduates on temporary graduate visas in Australia. It focuses on 50 in-depth interviews conducted with 32 temporary graduate visa holders and 18 key stakeholders. The interviews with international graduates related to their experiences while holding temporary graduate visas. This included their transition to the labor market and their experiences in seeking advice regarding their visa application, post-study work and migration. The focus of the interviews with key stakeholders including university representatives and education and migration agents was on their interactions with international graduates on temporary visas. Pseudonyms were used in this research to protect interviewees’ identity and organizations have been kept anonymous. Each interview lasted about 30–45 minutes. Although the sample of 50 interviewees might not depict the entire picture about post-study work in Australia, they provided valuable insights into the participants’ perceptions of or/and experiences with post-graduation visas and support.

A combined recruitment schedule, including advertisements in magazines relating to international education, professional networks, was used alongside a snowball approach to recruit participants for this study. NVivo version 10 was used for data coding and categorization of the emerging themes discussed in this article. NVivo facilitated open ended thematic categorization of the interview data through a constant comparison approach (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) which was used to interpret and analyze the interview data in accordance with positioning theory, as discussed above. This represents a careful process of engagement with the literature, positioning theory, and analysis of the quotes. The data were analyzed following both deductive and inductive approaches. The first two authors worked on this data analysis and interpretation. In the deductive analysis, the lead author first generated first-order codes informed by the literature, the research questions and the evaluation objectives (Thomas, 2006). Once these first-order codes were discussed and agreed by both researchers, inductive coding was used to allow themes and subthemes to emerge directly from the interview data and help capture the interviewees’ diverse experiences. The second author then drew on the key themes identified in the first-order coding for detailed analysis of the data as a recursive process of back-and-forth movement involving multiple readings, analyses, and interpretations of the data. At this stage, the data was analyzed from different perspectives of different groups of interviewees including education and migration agents, university staff and students. Names and colors were used to code the transcribed text to identify emerging subthemes and selected excerpts were subsequently analyzed. The first author then cross-checked the key themes and quotes used. The whole process of data coding and analyzing was informed by positioning theory with international graduates being positioned at the center of the discussions relative to other stakeholders, with whom they interact either directly or indirectly, including education and migration agents and university staff. These multiple positionings take place in an environment constructed by different moral orders of cultural, legal, and institutional. In this way, positioning theory provides a conceptual lens to explain how the self-positioning and other-positioning enable or hinder actors’ possible actions, including the access to corresponding rights and duties relative to these positions during the interviews.

Data Analysis and Discussion of Findings

Gaps Between Demand for Assistance and University Resources

The study shows that a critical area, where international graduates need assistance, is around advice on their visa application, post-study and migration pathways. However, there is a gap between temporary graduates’ demand for continuing access to career services and extended support for employability and post-study work visa advice. Under the Migration Act (Australian Government, 2018), universities are not permitted to provide the PSWR visa support (see further discussion below). Therefore, some universities partner with migration agents to provide free information sessions for international students and graduates to overcome this regulatory challenge. However, this arrangement carries the risk of engaging with low quality agents and/or does not meet university expectations.

…like with any outsourcing to third parties, how an institution might do that through a transparent process so that at least they know that the services that students might access might be legitimate and not too extreme in the cost. (University staff)

“they [migration agents] wouldn't come as regularly as what we would like” (University staff)

An alternative is to train up university staff to qualify them in providing PSWR and migration advice. However, the demands for such advice well exceed the availability of these staff and therefore qualified staff do not often promote this service because “they know they’re going to be inundated with requests” as shared by an international student support officer.

University staff also raised concerns about the imbalance between institutions' available resources and funding, and their ethical commitment to ensuring continued support for temporary graduates and thus delivery on promise. As shared by a university staff “it’s like with all of the services provided to students, they continue to be cut, cut, cut.” International student support staff also shared further concern:

…there’s that mentality that we just cut things off when the student finishes their studies because they're no longer a student. Why can't we continue to engage with them and support them? Because we did, we did attract them here on the initial promise of a post-study work visa.

Although international student support divisions invest in their capacity to attract international students and deliver on host university’s promises, they have little bargaining power with regard to resources allocation to care for international students (Forbes-Mewett & Nyland, 2013). Career services across Australian universities often experience human resources constraints with most falling well short of necessary resources and staffing levels (McKenzie & Howell, 2005). Ongoing staffing challenges in career and post-study work services across Australian universities only serve to inhibit the delivery of much-needed PSWR visa support and post-study pathway assistance to international students. Additionally, the existing regulatory system not only prevents universities from being in a legitimate position to support students on this issue, but also poses potential legal issues if they were to partner with legitimate agents, as a staff interviewee wondered “how an institution might do that through a transparent process?” From this perspective, there is a need for a radical change in legal and institutional practices which not only permits universities to provide their students with post-study work visa advice but also sees universities allocate sufficient resources to assist international students.

University staff interviewees felt that universities had an ethical obligation to continue post-graduation support provision to international graduates. The interaction between the students and their university reveals an ongoing process of positioning and repositioning where the students’ status shifts from being a student to a graduate. The interviewee mentioned above used deliberate self-positioning to refer to universities’ duties of providing PSWR visa support to their international students and deliberate positioning of others to express international students’ rights to accessing this service. He supported his argument by contrasting two sequential, but contradictory situations associated with the shift in the subject’s status from

(1) being a student who enjoys their consumer rights of being supported by their universities which is consistent with the proposition that international students have the right to enjoy the ‘commodity’ they have purchased in good faith; and

(2) a graduate who is no longer a consumer of education and therefore is marginalized. As the PSWR opportunity is used as a critical tool to create destination attraction and support international student recruitment, universities should be ethically accountable for providing continued support to their student graduates in their study work transition, including PSWR visa advice.

Harré’s positioning theory holds that the rights and duties to perform particular types of meaningful actions in a given moment are not equal to everyone involved and that a change in positionings can result in change in the meanings of actions people are performing (Harré, 2012). The finding of this study shows that in the absence of an appropriate regulative moral order of the PSWR visa support, university staff rely on cultural and personal moral orders to form their positioning, justify their behaviors and understand their rights and duties to act.

A Lack of an Appropriate Regulative Framework Created Legal Loopholes

As mentioned, universities are not permitted to provide advice on PSWR visa to their international students. Some agents and university staff interviewed however disagree as post-study visas and work pathways directly relate to the work-study transition. This arguably falls under the purview of universities as this discourse has captured the attention of universities who have placed an increasing emphasis on graduate employability (Coelen & Gribble, 2019). Moreover, the straightforward nature of the PSWR visa where “you either meet the requirements or you don’t meet the requirements” (Migration agent) is one which is considered to not place a significant burden on university staff.

Some international graduates expressed a desire for their universities to provide international students with more support and advice around visas and options: “It would be valuable to have some sort of support around visas... and allow students to understand what their options are.” Another shared his experience in trying to seek advice around the 485 visa:

“But when it comes to migration or applying for a 485 visa, um, when I contacted my international student office, they said, no, we can’t help you when it comes to that.”

Some agents were also of the view that education providers should be permitted to provide advice on matters related to post-graduation work visas:

So, if possible, there should be a regulation that allows education providers and international student advisors to provide advice on post-study visa eg. visa 485 or bridging visa after 485 which help students with knowledge of these visas. They do not need to provide advice on visas that lead to PR [permanent residency] which is more complicated and beyond their capacity. (Migration agent)

This migration agent deliberately other-positioned education providers and universities as agencies that should be assigned rights and duties to provide post-study visa support under a regulatory framework institutionalized by a legal moral order of regulations. To support his rationale, the interviewee drew a line between what should and should not be included in this new position, taking into consideration the current position of others with “others” here implicitly refer to registered migration agents legally permitted to provide services on PR and other visa matters under the Migration Act. In Harré’s view, moral orders which include legal and institutional orders have two dimensions: the first determines the actors’ rights and the second refers to the context which enables or constraints certain positions of agency (Van Langenhove, 2017). In this study, the Migration Act enables registered migration agents to legally provide support on PSWR visa to international students while preventing universities from exercising this service. The interviewed migration agent's perception that the “485 (visa) is very simple” lends to a desire for universities to be assigned legitimate rights to provide transparent and accurate visa information to help “students with knowledge of these visas” (visa 485, not PR) when supporting international students

The lack of an appropriate regulative framework creates loopholes around assistance relating to post-study work pathways and temporary graduate visas. As post-study work rights, temporary graduate work visas and PR are inter-linked, most universities are of the view that giving advice on these matters would risk breaching the law, thus shunning many international graduates who first turn to them for help. In turn, peers, and social networks and agents are sought out for information and advice as shared by a university staff:

So [we’re] extreme risk adverse. We're not gonna take any element of risk of potentially getting any advice that may be deemed migration advice. So we're currently looking at what advice we can give a student on renewing their student visa and the migration advisor is even saying we can't even tell them the very basic information of where they would go and what they would need to do to submit their application. (University representative)

Even registered migration agents expressed concerns around the rigidity of the Migration Act which inadvertently limits international students’ access to the necessary support.

Many [of] our clients [international graduates] complained, they said, “when I come to international student advisors they said they do not know or are not allowed to disclose this information”… About the Migration Act, indeed it is too strict with regard to who can provide advice or recommendations about migration or visa. It gets to a point where no one is allowed to do so except migration agents. (Migration agent)

The above excerpts can be taken to mean that the Migration Act places universities in a position of dilemma constructed by both legal and normative moral orders. The former (rules and regulations enforced by coercive power of government), which sets out universities’ legitimate position of having no rights and duties to be involved in the service, is in contrast with the latter (actors’ actions driven by ethical, normative, and moral systems), which encourages universities to assist their students as an ethical duty.

University staff in the first excerpt, deliberately self-positioned as being greatly uncertain about their involvement with fears of taking risks associated with their positioning, thereby rejecting any position associated with risks as determined by the regulative framework. Conversely, the ethical sense of responsibilities encourages them to carve out possible positions to assist their students. The university staff interviewee also other-positioned registered migration agents, who are perceived to have control of the situation while universities are denied from providing basic PSWR related information. This in turn marginalizes universities who experience limited agency in this space.

Unlike other industries, universities operate in a “soft” environment with high institutional demands as they are heavily governed by rules and regulations (Scott, 2008) which inadvertently hinders their ability to support their international students on issues relating to PSWR visa. Harré (2012) holds that the assignment of duties and rights is a matter of debate, as it can be taken, resisted, rejected, or repudiated by actors involved in a social discourse. In this study, the assignment of rights to registered migration agents to provide PSWR visa support on a fee-for-service basis is reasonable, but the exclusivity of these rights is debatable as this space, created by the unique rights assigned to migration agents, can provide opportunities for dodgy agents to operate in.

International Graduates Could be a Subject of Exploitation

The access to legal information and advice that international students have around their study and stay in Australia is convoluted to some degree. While international students are required to declare that they only intend to study and live in Australia on a temporary basis through a “genuine temporary entrant” statement (Department of Home Affairs, 2019), which might point to a clear separation between education and migration, pathways to permanent residency via the PSWR visa somewhat muddies the waters. To some extent, although universities want international students to make informed decisions not only about their study but also post-study pathways and employment goals, they are restricted from providing any information relating to PSWR. This inadvertently denies international students from making well-informed decisions, nor does it help them in managing expectations:

It comes back to the very beginning. If we're advising students at the very beginning on all these, their experiences and what they can expect, and we're told you’re not going to get, not talk about migration outcomes… And then they might get here and find out that the course or what we've given them, the advice, it's not right for them, but then we've locked them into six months of their principal course… And it's getting harder and harder because institutions don't want to release their students. (University staff)

As stated earlier, aside from registered migration agents, other individuals such as parliamentarians and their staff can provide immigration assistance without breaking the law provided that they do not charge a fee for their advice. In reality, they are unlikely to be accessed by international students and graduates. The current legislation therefore unintentionally diverts international graduates towards migration agents, which can add to an increase in the vulnerability of international students/graduates.

And I didn’t realise how bad things, how difficult things would be for me. No one I could speak to for free. It’ll cost you a fair bit of money to speak to a legal consultant. Maybe some advice or legal advice from just visa related issues from the university side would be beneficial. (International graduate).

Furthermore, some international students were confused about how to find reliable agents:

I think like those of agents, migration agents, I think it's not regulated enough for students to know who, what are the reliable one, and those who are not gonna like exploiting, like charge you so much for their advice.

Most interviewees in this study including university education and staff and migration agents indeed expressed a significant concern around the exploitation of international graduates by some unscrupulous agents:

Students would have to seek that advice elsewhere. Um, so therefore it's another area where people would see an opportunity to potentially exploit the students because they know that the institution is not going to give the advice, but they know that the students need the advice and migration agents do, do tend to charge a lot of money. (University staff).

In some instances, international students are unable to verify the information provided by migration agents which creates confusion and precarity as “there is [sic] no other sources for them to verify or to see if that pathway is the best for them” as said by a migration agent. An interviewed migration agent shared a story about an international graduate who wanted to use his service for the 485-visa application, but he refused and advised the student that it was a simple process which the student could do it by himself. This student then approached another agent but subsequently returned to the interviewed agent as he realized that the latter agent provided false and misleading information.

The [other] agent wanted him to do a more complex visa application, such as 457 [Temporary Work (Skilled) visa sponsored by an approved business] instead of 485 because this has more money in it. (Migration agent)

In all of the above excerpts, international graduates self-positioned (the second and third excerpts) or were other-positioned (the remaining excerpts) as a disadvantaged group that desperately needs PSWR visa advice. Their positionings as disempowered people with limited resources thus rendered them to the mercy of migration agents who are positioned as professional experts in their field. Van Langenhove (2017) argues that it is not an institution that has power; rather it resides with actors representing it and engaging in conversations who exercise the power. Indeed, with the assigned power enacted by the Migration Act, the superior and powerful position of migration agents exercised over international students is apparent with unethical agents exploiting legal loopholes at the expense of international students.

International students often find themselves in a legal bind relative to issues with their landlords, healthcare providers, education providers, and employers (Pejic, 2012; Tran, 2017; Tran & Soejatminah, 2017). Even for those who remain for an extended period of time on 485 visas or other temporary visas, their deeper engagement in different aspects of Australian society over time only serves to increase the potential for legal disputes due to their non-permanent status (Marginson et al., 2010). This places them at further risk due to their limited access to affordable legal advice (Forbes-Mewett & Nyland, 2008). All these legal related risks place international students in a deficit position which renders them vulnerable when dealing with shady migration agents.

Unethical Practices of Some Migration Agents

To recapitulate, as only registered migration agents are permitted to provide advice on migration matters, some unethical migration agents intentionally corner their customers into a position they may have unwittingly engaged in the services of the agent before knowing the cost of the said service.

The government body who manages migration agents has regulations with regard to transparency in the fees charged to their customers… But from our own observations, I do not know if there is even 1% of the agents who follow these guidelines… But usually only after they meet a customer when they give the quote. So, customers after meeting the advisor for half an hour or an hour, … have to pay any amount asked by the agent as they have already used the services, so have no choice. (Migration agent)

Some migration agents can also be aggressive in their recruitment of international students. They not only hover around institutions but also hunt for their international student/graduates-clients on multiple social medial channels. They advertise themselves on social media, especially through Facebook pages of various international student associations. Numerous Facebook groups named “Assistance with 485 visa application” or “Seeking PR in Australia” have also been established by international students and graduates or agents to discuss the application of temporary graduate visa. Some agents scour through these groups to lure international students or graduates. Other unethical practices include advertising having “real employers to sponsor you.” The interviews also revealed how some migration agents provided advice on undertaking further courses to gain points for PR which raises questions on whether such motives are driven by commissions from education providers, based on the enrollment of their clients. Moreover, it was also claimed that the recommended courses by migration agents did not necessarily match or suit the professional needs of international students and graduates.

They [agents] hover around institutions, they hover around in the city and give out brochures. And the other connection is a lot of the time they'll be saying, oh, you know, we'll give you migration advice, But then you come to get migration advice from them and they say you're going to have to change your course because you're not going to get as many points so you need to change to another course. So then they actually start recruiting to send students through other providers. (University staff)

An international graduate interviewee reflected his encounter with an agent in the belief that they would guarantee his success with his 485-visa application. However, this agent informed him that he was ineligible for a 485 visa and needed to enroll in further studies. The student eventually applied for the visa himself which was granted shortly after.

Why does he [the agent] said [sic] no, he is a registered migration agent, he’s holding his professional certificate and providing service to his customer, it’s impossible that he does not know, he is an expert, not a lay people [sic] such as a friend who can be right or wrong. (International graduate)

The international graduate further shared the real reason behind the agent’s recommendation for further study.

I was so sad as I found out later on that he [the migration agent] intentionally did that for his benefits [sic] because if I enrolled a course, he would have been paid a commission from the institution. I feel sorry for those who work with such kind of unethical agents. You are a registered migration agent and you mislead your customer for your interest, it’s a big problem. (International graduate)

There were also concerns within the migration industry that unscrupulous agents were damaging the reputation of the sector thus negatively impacting the integrity of the Australian international education industry and migration.

The pity that people are too greedy. And I don't know, I don't want to make too much comments about those people because to me, they are in the wrong profession, using the profession to take advantage of people's fears. So that's really wrong. (Migration agent)

In the above excerpts, international students self-positioned and were other-positioned as paying customers with a right to enjoy an expected quality service. Migration agents were other-positioned as experts whose duty was to provide students reasonable advice and service. Indeed, registered migration agents are positioned as a service expert legitimately constructed by the Migration Act that manages and monitors their performance. However, this sole legal order is not sufficient to ensure migration agents’ service quality. The example of the migration agent misdirecting the international student to enrolling in another course for PSWR purposes underscores how even with legal moral orders assigned to migration agent, the lack of cultural and personal moral orders can result in unethical practices.

Concluding Remarks and Recommendations

The study contributes to our understandings of the ways in which the key players in the post-study work landscape, such as migration agents, university representatives and international graduates, position themselves and are positioned by each other in relation to the provision of support and advice on post-graduation work and migration. In the context of international graduate post-study work characterized by the sensitivity of education-migration nexus, the findings of this study enrich the current literature by highlighting the dynamic of the positioning process which hinders or enables certain positions of agency through ascribed corresponding rights and duties relative to these positions. In this specific context, the article has identified a continuum of multiple positions from marginalized (international graduates) to subordinate (universities and education agents) to dominant (migration agents) with corresponding rights and duties that determine the magnitude of negotiation power of each position relative to the others. In addition, the process of positioning and the formation of this continuum of positions are affected by the hybridity of multiple moral orders including cultural, legal, institutional, conversational, and personal. This study elucidates how these nested moral orders described in positioning theory function to form an environment in which the interactions between actors take place, and the uneven distribution of powers associated with different positions. It also holds that in the absence of one moral order (e.g., legal moral order), other moral orders determine actors’ actions (in the case of university staff providing PSWR advice to international graduates) and that the enforcement and/or the impact of the individual moral order varies according to different discursive practices.

The findings of the study related to the convergence of post-study work-migration regimes underline the need to address the unintended consequence of the nexus between post-study work and migration. Through the analysis of the positionings of migration agents, university representatives and international graduates and their perceptions of their rights and duties, the study raises a range of questions around the role of universities in supporting their alumni on temporary visas and the scope of their support. In particular, in evaluating the current practices relative to the PSWR visas and the impact of multiple moral orders on the provision of support to international students and graduates, it identifies loopholes within the existing regulative framework which legitimizes the exclusive right of providing migration advice to migration agents which can render some international students vulnerable to unethical agents. On the one hand, this situation indicates that the federal government should manage off/onshore education agents more closely, with respect to ethical practices and advice being provided on post-study-migration nexus, eligible courses for the 485 visa and entitlements and the 485 visa not being a guaranteed pathway to permanent residency or/and employment. On the other hand, there is an urgent need for international students and graduates to have a frame of reference when it comes to engaging with migration agents.

While the majority of registered migration agents and education agents in Australia might be professional and ethical, there are still unscrupulous agents who take advantage of those who are socially, legally and financially vulnerable (Department of Home Affairs, 2020; Parliament of Australia, 2019). Given that the PSWR visa application process is quite simple, compared to other complex visa applications, and that international students and graduates are in a deficit position with limited resources and power of negotiation, this study suggests that the complete exclusion of universities from providing PSWR advice only serves to heighten the risk of international students being exploited by unethical agents. The Federal Government should consider extending the scope of advice universities can provide about issues related to post-study work and temporary graduate visa application process to align with objectives that relate to the transition to work. It is critical that universities in Australia and also in Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and US take on a more active role in guiding international students to achieve positive post-study work outcomes as this also has implications for their competitive advantage in the education export market. Although this study focuses on Australia, the implications can to some extent apply to other study destinations such as Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and US since these countries also have post-graduation work policies and international students and graduates in these countries are reported to face some similar challenges in seeking employment (Flynn and Arthur, 2013; Monahan, 2018; Sangganjanavanich et al., 2011).

The government might also consider establishing a dedicated website providing information about post-study work rights, temporary graduate visa, and post-485 visa pathways. It is important that this website is created in consultation with key stakeholders and hosted by a recognized organization or regulatory body. The website can have specific categories, targeting employers, international students/graduates, education providers, and the community. The section for employers should provide description about the purpose and intent of the 485-visa, its entitlements and post-485 visa options. It should provide very clear FAQs on the temporary graduate visa for international students. While universities cannot provide legal advice, they could refer students who have any post-study work- and migration-related questions to this website. The application process and the cost for the 485-visa should be explained clearly on the website.

Collective action is needed to provide more effective support for international students who stay in the host country post-graduation. Some examples of this collective action include

• Partnerships between universities and legitimate migration agents around the provision of guidance and advice for post-study work rights

• Agreement with legitimate migration agents who can provide free information sessions on campus about the temporary graduate visa and the checklist for visa application

• Partnership between University’s Student Association/Student Union and community run legal Centers to provide international students and graduates with guidance and advice on temporary graduate visa and post-study work rights.

• The Federal Government should consider organizing consultation processes with key stakeholders through a Reference Group and set up an Independent Committee in charge of continuing monitoring and review of the implementation of the PSWR policy.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Research Development Grant, Deakin University.

ORCID iDs

Ly Thi Tran

Huyen Bui

George Tan

Mar Rahimi

Notes

Author Biographies

Ly Tran, PhD, is a professor in the School of Education, Deakin University and an Australian Research Council Future Fellow. Her research focuses on international education, graduate employability, and Vietnamese higher education.

Huyen Bui is currently a Transnational Education Partnerships Officer at Deakin International, Deakin University. Her research interest includes inbound and outbound student mobility, international student acculturation, international graduate employability and transnational education and partnerships.

George Tan is a research fellow at Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Australia. His research areas include international migration, particularly in international students, skilled migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. He is passionate about the role of research in evidence-based policymaking underpinned by a strong sense of social justice.

Mark Rahimi is a research fellow in Research for Educational Impact, Strategic Research Centre in Education, Deakin University, Australia. His research interests include international student graduate employability and international education.

References

Agunias

D. R.

(2013). What we know about regulating the recruitment of migrant workers. Policy Brief, 6, 1–11.

Australian Government (2018). National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L01182

Baas

(2006). Students of migration: Indian overseas students and the question of permanent residency. People and Place, 14(1), 8–23.

Baas

(2007). The language of migration: The education industry versus the migration industry. People and Place, 15(2), 49–60.

Baas

(2015). Transnational student-migrants and the State. The education-migration nexus. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 36(6), 743–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2015.1096239

Baas

(2019). The education-migration industry: International students, migration policy and the question of skills. International Migration, 57(3), 222–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12540

Barnes

(2004). November). The use of positioning theory in studying student participation in collaborative learning activities Annual Meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education. Melbourne. https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2004/bar04684.pdf

Beech

S.E.

(2019). The geographies of international student mobility: Spaces, places and decision-making. Springer.

Berquist

Hall

Morris-Lange

Shields

Stern

Tran

(2019). Global perspectives on international student employability. International Education Association of Australia (IEAA). https://www.ieaa.org.au/documents/item/1586

10.

Blackmore

Gribble

Farrell

Rahimi

Arber

Devlin

(2014). Australian international graduates and the transition to employment: Final report. Deakin University.

11.

Blackmore

Rahimi

(2019). How ‘best fit’excludes international graduates from employment in Australia: a Bourdeusian perspective. Journal of Education and Work, 32(5), 436–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2019.1679729

12.

Chew

(2019). Economic opportunities and outcomes of post-study work rights in Australia. International Education Association of Australia (IEAA). https://www.ieaa.org.au/documents/item/1715

13.

Coelen

Gribble

(2019). Internationalization and employability in higher education. Routledge.

14.

Coffey

Farivar

Cameron

(2021). The job seeking experiences of international graduates in the host country: Australia’s lost opportunity? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(4), 846–870. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1504106

15.

Collins

F. L.

(2012). Organizing student mobility: Education agents and student migration to New Zealand. Pacific Affairs, 85(1), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.5509/2012851137

16.

Cranston

Schapendonk

Spaan

(2018). New directions in exploring the migration industries: Introduction to special issue. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(4), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1315504

17.

Department of Education and Training (2019). International Education Agents-Overview report. https://www.dese.gov.au/download/4693/international-education-agents-overview/7030/document/pdf

18.

Department of Home Affairs (2017). Annual Report 2016-2017. https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/reports-and-pubs/Annualreports/2016-17/Complete.pdf

19.

Department of Home Affairs (2019). Australia’s Migration Trends 2018–19 Highlights. https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/migration-trends-highlights-2018-19.PDF

20.

Department of Home Affairs (2020). Creating a world class migration advice industry. Retrieved July 15, 2021, from https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/reports-and-publications/submissions-and-discussion-papers/migration-advice-industry

21.

Department of Home Affairs (2021). Temporary Graduate visa. Retrieved July 15, 2021, from https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/temporary-graduate-485

22.

Department of Education and Training (2017). Standard 4: Education agents https://internationaleducation.gov.au/regulatory-information/Documents/National%20Code%202018%20Factsheets/Standard%204.pdf

23.

Flynn

Arthur

(2013). International students views of transition to employment and immigration. Canadian Journal of Career Development, 12(1), 28–37.

24.

Forbes-Mewett

Nyland

(2008). Cultural diversity, relocation, and the security of international students at an internationalised university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(2), 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307308136

25.

Forbes-Mewett

Nyland

(2013). Funding international student support services: Tension and power in the university. Higher Education, 65(2), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9537-0.

26.

Groutsis

Van den Broek

Harvey

W.S.

(2015). Transformations in network governance: The case of migration intermediaries. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(10), 1558–1576. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2014.1003803

27.

Hall

(2019). Australia’s work rights policy settings. In Berquist

Hall

Morris-Lange

Shields

Stern

Tran

(Eds.), Global perspectives on international student employability . International Education Association of Australia (IEAA). https://www.ieaa.org.au/documents/item/1586

28.

Harré

Moghaddam

F.M.

Cairnie

T.P.

Rothbart

Sabat

S. R.

(2009). Recent advances in positioning theory. Theory & Psychology, 19(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354308101417

29.

Harré

Van Langenhove

(2010). Varieties of positioning. Routledge.

30.

Harré

(2012). Positioning theory: Moral dimensions of social-cultural psychology. In Valsiner

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 191–206). Oxford University Press.

31.

Hawthorne

(2010). Demography, migration and demand for international students. In Findlay

Tierney

W. G.

(Eds.), Globalisation and tertiary education in the Asia-Pacific: The changing nature of a dynamic market (pp. 93–119). World Scientific Press.

32.

Hernandez-Leon

(2012). Conceptualising the migration industry. In Gammeltoft-Hanses

Nyberg Sorensen

(Eds.), The Migration Industry and the Commercialization of International Migration. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203082737

33.

Hugo

(2014, 23 September). High-skilled migration to Asian Nations. In US National Academies’ Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy Conference on Global High Skilled Immigration Policy, 22–23.

34.

Kaplan (2019). The UK’s tax revenues from international students post-graduation. https://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-UK-tax-revenues-from-international-students.pdf

35.

Khan

(2019). Contested ground: Network governance in Australia's migration industry. International Migration, 57(3), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12568

36.

Kuptsch

(2005). Globalization and higher education: The migration of students from developing countries to Western Europe. Journal of Comparative Labour Relations, 55, 149–156.

37.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

38.

Lindquist

Xiang

Yeoh

B. S.

(2012). Opening the black box of migration: Brokers, the organization of transnational mobility and the changing political economy in Asia. Pacific Affairs, 85(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.5509/20128517

39.

Lomer

(2018). UK policy discourses and international student mobility: The deterrence and subjectification of international students. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 16(3), 308–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2017.1414584

40.

Marginson

Nyland

Sawir

Forbes-Mewett

(2010). International student security. Cambridge University Press.

41.

Monahan

J. L.

(2018). Starting a career in the U.S.: International student perceptions of the optional practical training experience. Doctoral dissertation. University of Missouri-Columbia. MOspace. https://doi.org/10.32469/10355/67703

42.

McKenzie

Howell

(2005). A snapshot of Australian university career services. Australian Journal of Career Development, 14(2), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/103841620501400203

43.

Nikula

P. T.

Kivistö

(2020). Monitoring of education agents engaged in international student recruitment: Perspectives from agency theory. Journal of Studies in International Education, 24(2), 212–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315318825338

44.

Nikula

P. T.

(2020). Education agent standards in Australia and New Zealand–government’s role in agent-based international student recruitment. Studies in Higher Education, 47(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1811219

45.

Observatory on Borderless Higher Education . (2014, 3 September). The agent question: New data has the answer, ICEF Monitor.

46.

OECD (2012). Education at a glance 2012OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2012_eag-2012-en

47.

OECD (2020). Education at a glance 2020OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2020_69096873-en#page229

48.

Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (2014). Annual Report 2013–14. https://www.mara.gov.au/notices-reports-subsite/Files/mara-annual-report-2013-14.pdf

49.

Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (2018). Migration Agent Activity Report 1 January to 30 June 2018. https://www.mara.gov.au/notices-reports-subsite/Files/maar-jan-jun-2018.pdf

50.

Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (2020). Migration Agent Activity Report 1 January - 30 June 2020. https://www.mara.gov.au/notices-reports-subsite/Files/MAAR_Jan_to_Jun_2020_Web.pdf

51.

Parliament of Australia (2019). Report of the inquiry into efficacy of current regulation of Australian migration and education agents. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Migration/Migrationagentregulatio/Report

52.

Pejic

(2012). International Student Welfare in Australia. International Social Service Australia.

53.

Robertson

(2011). Student switchers and the regulation of residency: the interface of the individual and Australia’s immigration regime. Population, Space and Place, 17(1), 103-115.

54.

Sá

C. M.

Sabzalieva

(2018). The politics of the great brain race: Public policy and international student recruitment in Australia, Canada, England and the USA. Higher Education, 75(2), 231–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0133-1

55.

Sangganjanavanich

V.F.

Lenz

A.S.

Cavazos

Jr. (2011). International students' employment search in the United States: A phenomenological study. Journal of Employment Counseling, 48(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2011.tb00107.x

56.

Scott

W. R.

(2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Sage.

57.

Thomas

D. R.

(2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748

58.

Tran

L. T.

(2017). ‘I am really expecting people to judge me by my skills’: ethnicity and identity of international students. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 69(3), 390–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2016.1275033

59.

Tran

L. T.

Blackmore

Rahimi

(2021). You are not as localised as I need: employability of Chinese returning graduates. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-09-2020-0221

60.

Tran

L. T.

Bui

H. T. N.

(2019). International graduates: navigating the host and home labour markets. International Education Association of Australia (IEAA). https://www.ieaa.org.au/documents/item/1743

61.

Tran

L. T.

Phan

Tan

Rahimi

(2020). I changed my strategy and looked for jobs on Gumtree: the ecological circumstances and international graduates’ agency and strategies to navigate the Australian labour market. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2020.1837613.

62.

Tran

L. T.

Rahimi

Tan

(2019). Temporary Graduatification: Impacts of Post-Study Work Rights Policy in Australia. REDI: Deakin University. REDI: Deakin University. https://www.deakin.edu.au/redi/our-research/Impacts-of-Post-Study-Work-Rights-Policy-in-Australia.

63.

Tran

L. T.

Rahimi

Tan

Dang

X. T.

(2020). Post-study work for international graduates in Australia: opportunity to enhance employability, get a return on investment or secure migration? Globalisation, Societies and Education, 18(5), 495-510.

64.

Tran

L. T.

Soejatminah

(2016). Get foot in the door: International students’ perceptions of work-integrated learning. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(3), 337-355. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2015.1128526.

65.

Tran

L. T.

Soejatminah

(2017). Integration of work experience and learning for international students: From harmony to inequality. Journal of Studies in International Education, 21(3), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315316687012

66.

Tran

L. T.

T. T. P.

(2016). I’m not like that, why treat me the same way? The impact of stereotyping international students on their learning, employability and connectedness with the workplace. The Australian Educational Researcher, 43(2), 203-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-015-0198-8.

67.

Van Langenhove

(2017). Varieties of moral orders and the dual structure of society: A perspective from positioning theory. Frontiers in Sociology, 2(9). https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2017.00009

68.

Van Langenhove

Harré

(1999). Introducing positioning theory. In Van Langenhove

Harré

(Eds.), Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts of Intentional Action (pp. 14–31). Oxford Basil Blackwell Publishers.

69.

Velayutham

(2013). Precarious experiences of Indians in Australia on 457 temporary work visas. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 24(3), 340–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035304613495268

70.

Vincent-Lancrin

(2008). Student mobility, internationalization of higher education and skilled migration International Organisation for Migration, World Migration 2008: Managing Labour Mobility in the Involving Global Economy. Geneva.

71.

Voigt-Graf

Khoo

S. E.

(2004). Indian student migration to Australia. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 13(4), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/011719680401300402