Last updated: 30 July 2026. Data source: DHA Study Visa Statistics, ingested into SVH's production dataset.
Data scope: Offshore only. Rolling three month window, March to May 2026. Evidence level classification per SVH's own triangulation (see note below); DHA does not publish a country-level evidence tier table directly.
SVH's evidence level classification tells students how much documentation scrutiny to expect. What it has not previously shown is whether that classification actually lines up with what happens to real applications. It does, and the shape of the gap is not what a simple "three tiers, three outcomes" model would predict.
A note on the classification itself. SVH's evidence level tiers are triangulated from IDP and Moon Visa guidance and inference from DHA's Web Evidentiary Tool document checklists. DHA does not publicly label or publish an evidence-tier list. The tiers describe documentation burden, not a published risk score, and should be read as SVH's best current inference, refreshed every WET cycle (March and September). See how SVH classifies evidence levels for the full method and country lists.
The headline gap
Grant rates by evidence level, weighted by lodgement volume, offshore, March to May 2026:
| Evidence level | Weighted grant rate | Countries in this window | Lodgements covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 (Strong) | 92.6% | 6 | 3,113 |
| Level 2 (Moderate) | 92.1% | 5 | 14,131 |
| Level 3 (Caution) | 45.7% | 10 | 23,539 |
Source: DHA Study Visa Statistics, via SVH production dataset. Countries included are those carrying a verified evidence level with offshore lodgement volume in the current window; see the full country table in grant rates by nationality for every nationality including unclassified ones.
The finding: it's a cliff, not a slope
The intuitive expectation is a gradient: L1 highest, L2 in the middle, L3 lowest, roughly evenly spaced. That is not what the current window shows. Level 1 (92.6%) and Level 2 (92.1%) sit within half a point of each other. Level 3 drops to 45.7%, a fall of roughly 46 percentage points from Level 2. Whatever separates L3 from L1/L2 in DHA's assessment practice, it is not being applied as a smooth continuum. It behaves as a threshold.
This matters for how the tiers should be read. Being classified L2 rather than L1 does not, on this data, mean materially more scrutiny in outcome terms. Being classified L3 does.
Not every L3 country sits at the L3 average
Two Level 3 countries in the current window sit well above the 45.7% weighted average:
- Thailand — 72.0% grant rate, 467 lodgements
- Fiji — 64.7% grant rate, 167 lodgements
Both are lower-volume than the largest L3 markets (India, Nepal, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Pakistan), which together account for the bulk of L3 lodgement volume and pull the weighted average down. A country's evidence level sets the documentation bar; it does not, on its own, fix the outcome. Application quality and provider mix still move the number materially within a tier.
What this means for agents and providers
- Treat L3 as the real dividing line, not a third of a three-way split. Placement and documentation-support resourcing should weight toward the L1/L2 vs L3 boundary rather than treating the three tiers as evenly spaced risk bands.
- Don't apply the tier average to every student in it. Thailand and Fiji show that L3 countries can materially outperform the L3 average. Country-level context still matters inside the tier.
- Watch the September WET refresh. SVH re-verifies the classification against DHA's Web Evidentiary Tool twice a year. A country moving tiers is a genuine signal worth flagging to affected students, not routine noise.
Individual circumstances vary. This article is general information, not migration or legal advice. For guidance on a specific application, consult a MARA registered migration agent.
Data sources: DHA Study Visa Statistics