Harsh Patel Sentenced to 10 years in Prison.

Human smuggler gets 10-year sentence for his role in the human smuggling operation which caused a family of four to freeze to death on the US-Canada border. 

In January 2022, Jagdish Patel (39), his wife Vaishaliben (37), their daughter Vihangi (11), and son Dharmik (3), all from Dingucha, Gujarat, froze to death while attempting to illegally cross the U.S.-Canada border during a blizzard. The family, lured by promises of a better life, was part of a group of 11 Indian migrants smuggled through a sophisticated operation orchestrated by Harshkumar Ramanlal Patel (no relation to the victims). On January 19, 2022, near the Manitoba-Minnesota border, the group faced brutal conditions with wind chill temperatures dropping to -36°F. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police discovered the family’s bodies just 33 feet from the U.S. border, highlighting the deadly risks of the smuggling operation.

Following his imprisonment, Patel faces deportation from the United States. His accomplice, 50-year-old Steve Anthony Shand, also from Florida, was sentenced to six years and six months in prison, followed by two years of supervised release. Trial evidence revealed that Patel and Shand participated in an extensive smuggling network that facilitated the entry of Indian nationals into Canada using fraudulent student visas before illegally transporting them across the U.S. northern border. Patel coordinated the smuggling logistics from Manitoba, Canada, into the U.S., while Shand drove the migrants from just south of the Canadian border to Chicago. Both profited from the operation, ignoring the dangers of extreme cold faced by the migrants. The trial disclosed that the smuggling fee from India through Canada to the U.S. was approximately $100,000 per person.

Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division said “Patel and Shand endangered thousands of lives for their personal enrichment and are responsible for the deaths of two small children who froze to death on their watch. This case demonstrates the grave danger associated with human smuggling operations. I thank the prosecutors and our law enforcement partners in the U.S. and in Canada who are working to secure the northern border and end the perilous smuggling of aliens into the United States.”

The sentencing of Harshkumar Patel and Steve Shand may deter some human smuggling activities by showcasing consequences, but it’s unlikely to stop the practice entirely. Human smuggling is driven by complex factors like economic desperation, global migration pressures, and organized crime networks, which persist despite individual convictions. Their operation charged $100,000 per person, indicating high profitability that attracts others to fill the void. While the 10-year and 6.5-year sentences send a message, the U.S.-Canada border’s vastness and demand for migration routes suggest smuggling will continue unless root causes—poverty, visa restrictions, and lax enforcement—are addressed. Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection shows over 1,000 apprehensions of Indian nationals at the northern border in 2022, a fraction of total attempts, highlighting the scale of the issue.

Estimates of Indian Nationals Smuggled into the U.S. and Canada

Precise numbers of Indian nationals smuggled into the U.S. and Canada are challenging to pinpoint due to the clandestine nature of human smuggling and incomplete data on undetected crossings. However, available data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and other sources provide estimates:

United States: 

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, CBP encountered approximately 96,917 Indian nationals attempting illegal crossings at U.S. borders, with 30,010 at the U.S.-Canada border and 41,770 at the U.S.-Mexico border. This marks a significant increase from 2,225 at the northern border in FY 2021. 

Since October 2020, CBP has recorded about 169,000 encounters with Indian migrants at both southern and northern U.S. land borders, making them the largest group of extra-hemispheric migrants encountered during this period.

In FY 2024, 43,764 Indian nationals were detained at the U.S.-Canada border, the highest recorded figure for this entry point, with a total of 69,380 encounters across both borders (25,616 at the southern border).

Estimates suggest around 725,000 undocumented Indian immigrants were living in the U.S. as of 2022, making them the third-largest group of unauthorized immigrants after Mexicans and Salvadorans.

Canada: 

Specific figures for Indian nationals smuggled into Canada are less clear, as Canada’s data focuses more on apprehensions at the U.S. border or asylum claims. However, a 2023 report noted that Indians are among the largest groups of asylum seekers in Canada, with many entering legally on visitor or student visas before attempting to cross into the U.S.

These figures likely underestimate the total number of smuggled individuals, as they only account for those apprehended or encountered by authorities. Many crossings go undetected, and the smuggling networks are sophisticated, often involving multiple countries and routes.

See the latest study abroad news and updates

U.S. Suspends New Student Visa Interviews Amid Enhanced Social Media Scrutiny

Visa appointments stopped till further notice leaving thousands of students in the lurch. New guidelines for vetting to be adopted before visa appointments resume. 

The United States has paused scheduling new interviews for student and exchange visitor visas (F, M, and J categories) as part of a broader initiative to overhaul vetting processes, according to recent reports. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a directive to diplomatic posts, stating, “Effective immediately, consular sections should not add any additional student or exchange visitor (F, M and J) visa appointment capacity until further guidance is issued.” This move, detailed in a memo obtained by CBS News, signals a temporary halt to new appointments while allowing existing ones to proceed.

The decision aligns with the Trump administration’s plans to intensify social media screening for visa applicants, focusing on security concerns and combating what it describes as an “anti-Semitic atmosphere” on some U.S. campuses. The State Department’s memo hints at forthcoming guidelines to expand social media vetting, though specifics on the content under review—potentially tied to executive orders on terrorism and antisemitism—remain unclear. This shift comes amid heightened tensions between the administration and certain elite universities, which President Trump has criticized for allegedly fostering left-leaning ideologies and discriminatory practices.

The pause could significantly impact international students, who are vital to many U.S. institutions, often contributing substantial tuition revenue. For instance, universities like Harvard, where over 25% of students are international, face potential financial and academic challenges. The administration’s broader policies, including funding cuts and visa revocations, have sparked legal battles, with courts blocking some measures. Critics, including universities, argue these actions infringe on free speech, particularly regarding pro-Palestinian activism, which the White House claims has been co-opted by antisemitic sentiments.

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce emphasized the importance of rigorous vetting, stating, “We take very seriously the process of vetting who it is that comes into the country, and we’re going to continue to do that.” As the administration prepares new protocols, the suspension of visa interviews raises concerns about delays for prospective students and the broader implications for U.S. higher education’s global standing.

UGC Grants approval to 5 universities to open campuses in India!

Victoria University (VU) and Western Sydney University (WSU), Illinois Institute of Technology (Chicago), Istituto Europeo di Design (Italy) and The University of Liverpool (UK) get approval to set up campuses. 

Australia is poised to significantly expand its academic presence in India, capitalizing on a renewed global enthusiasm for the complex venture of transnational education through branch campuses.

The University Grants Commission (UGC) of India has recently approved applications from five international institutions to establish satellite campuses, including two Australian universities: Victoria University (VU) and Western Sydney University (WSU). Joining them are the Illinois Institute of Technology from Chicago, Italy’s Istituto Europeo di Design based in Milan, and the University of Liverpool from the UK.

This wave of approvals underscores India’s emergence as a focal point for a revitalized push by universities from Australia, the UK, and the US to establish overseas academic hubs. Last July, Deakin University and the University of Wollongong pioneered this trend by launching campuses in Gujarat’s Gift City, a special economic zone, followed by the University of Southampton, which began operations on Delhi’s periphery in August.

The University of Western Australia has also submitted an application to the UGC for permission to establish campuses in Mumbai and other Indian locales. Vice-chancellor Amit Chakma described the initiative as a “new chapter in our century-long illustrious journey.”

WSU, which announced its intent to establish an Indian campus in January after opening a branch in Surabaya, Indonesia, the previous September, plans to commence operations in early 2026. The Delhi campus, situated in an industrial hub on the city’s interstate outskirts, will offer programs in agriculture, food security, computer science, business, and engineering. A WSU spokesperson expressed enthusiasm, stating, “This is a significant milestone in our journey to establishing a presence in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The university continues with its planning towards establishing a campus which includes seeking approval by our board of trustees.”

VU has been less forthcoming about its plans but anticipates receiving a “letter of intent” from the UGC, according to senior deputy vice-chancellor John Germov. He noted, “[We are] looking forward to working alongside local partners to…create a thriving campus for students and collaborate on ways to make a tangible contribution to India’s National Education Policy.”

As universities in Australia, the UK, and North America face increasing restrictions on recruiting international students to their home campuses, offshore ventures appear as a viable alternative. However, experts caution against expecting swift financial returns. Justin Bokor, an independent adviser with prior roles at Monash University and EY, warned, “Branch campuses don’t deliver…a financial boon in the first three to five years, [and] frequently not in the first five to 10 years.”

Financial reports corroborate this view. Monash University’s campuses in Malaysia, China, and Indonesia contributed only 4.3 percent of its revenue last year, with the long-established Malaysia campus, operational for 27 years, accounting for nearly all of it. The newer China and Indonesia campuses, launched in 2012 and 2020, respectively, each generated a mere 0.2 percent of total income.

Similarly, the University of Wollongong’s Dubai campus, established over three decades ago, contributed 7 percent of institutional revenue in 2023, while its six-year-old Malaysia campus added 3 percent. However, its Hong Kong campus, plagued by declining enrollments and underutilized facilities, posted a A$53 million (£25 million) deficit. Despite financial strains necessitating approximately 275 job cuts, Wollongong is advancing plans for a pioneering campus in Saudi Arabia. New Zealand’s Massey University is similarly expanding in Singapore while implementing domestic staff reductions.

WSU, which announced up to 400 job cuts in April due to ongoing deficits, faces challenges in replicating the favorable conditions enjoyed by Wollongong and Deakin in Gift City, where tax-free profit repatriation is permitted for a decade. Alastair Dawson, a business consultant and former vice-president at Central Queensland University, highlighted the financial complexities of offshore campuses, noting, “There’s a lot of hidden costs that you don’t really ever understand until you get there.” Dawson, who established CQU’s Jakarta campus and explored further expansions in Sumatra and Sulawesi, emphasized that international students in Australia are often motivated by access to its lucrative job market—a draw absent in offshore campuses. He added, “You’ve got to tap into the scholarship market…but it’s a lot more work, and it’s a lot less profitable.”

Nevertheless, Bokor sees offshore campuses as a “pathway to vibrancy” amid stagnant domestic enrollments and stringent government restrictions on international student recruitment. He highlighted India’s vast demographic potential, with approximately 120 million people aged 20 to 25 and a government goal to double tertiary education participation. “Even without any population growth, that will supply a vast number of young people to be educated – and that’s just India,” he said. “If you can’t access that onshore, and they have a need for extra supply offshore, then go to where the market is. If you can get that right, then it becomes a source of strength and vitality for your organisation over the next generation.”

UK and EU negotiate Youth Mobility Scheme. UK to rejoin Erasmus?

In a pivotal development signaling a thaw in post-Brexit relations, the United Kingdom and the European Union have embarked on negotiations to establish a reciprocal youth mobility scheme, a move that could presage the UK’s reintegration into the Erasmus+ programme under newly negotiated terms. The initiative, formalized during the UK-EU summit on May 19, 2025, reflects a concerted effort to restore opportunities for young people to live, work, and study across borders, while navigating the labyrinthine complexities of political sensitivities and fiscal constraints.

A Framework for Youth Mobility

The proposed scheme, targeting individuals aged 18 to 30, aims to facilitate time-limited sojourns for work, study, volunteering, or cultural exploration. Unlike the unfettered freedom of movement that characterized the UK’s erstwhile EU membership, this initiative is meticulously circumscribed. The UK, wary of domestic apprehensions regarding immigration, advocates for stringent caps on participant numbers and visa durations of one to two years, potentially extendable, mirroring its extant youth mobility arrangements with 13 non-EU nations, such as Australia and Canada. In 2023, these schemes issued approximately 24,000 visas, underscoring their controlled yet impactful scope.

The EU, initially proposing a more expansive four-year visa framework without quotas, has signaled a willingness to compromise. Recent deliberations suggest a possible convergence on 12-month visas with provisions for extension, alongside sector-specific restrictions to assuage concerns about labor market saturation. However, contentious issues persist, notably the EU’s earlier proposition that its students pay domestic tuition fees in the UK—capped at £9,535—rather than the exorbitant international rates, which can reach £38,000. UK universities, reeling from financial pressures, have decried this as untenable, citing the historical asymmetry in student flows favoring EU entrants. Similarly, the UK’s insistence on maintaining the Immigration Health Surcharge for EU participants underscores its commitment to fiscal prudence and migration control.

The Erasmus+ Question

Central to the discourse is the tantalizing prospect of the UK’s reassociation with Erasmus+, the EU’s flagship programme for education, training, youth, and sport. Prior to Brexit, Erasmus+ facilitated seamless exchanges for students and academics, fostering cross-cultural collaboration. The UK’s withdrawal, driven by concerns over disproportionate costs and imbalanced participation, led to the creation of the Turing Scheme, a domestic alternative criticized for its limited scope. Rejoining Erasmus+ could reinvigorate academic mobility, but the UK demands significantly ameliorated financial terms to address past grievances, particularly the imbalance wherein more EU students studied in the UK than vice versa.

The ongoing negotiations, expected to intensify by autumn 2025, hinge on resolving these fiscal and logistical intricacies. The EU’s push for equitable tuition fees remains a formidable obstacle, as does the UK’s reticence to subsidize a programme perceived as disproportionately benefiting EU participants. Nevertheless, the Labour government, under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, has expressed cautious optimism, viewing reassociation as a potential boon for cultural diplomacy and the UK’s soft power, particularly in sectors like higher education and English language instruction.

Political and Public Dynamics

The negotiations are fraught with political undercurrents. In the UK, Starmer’s Labour government treads a delicate path, balancing its commitment to a “reset” in EU relations with domestic pressures from critics, including Reform UK and segments of the Conservative Party, who decry the scheme as a surreptitious return to free movement. Such claims, however, appear overstated, given the scheme’s capped and temporary nature. A YouGov poll from April 2024 revealed 53% of Leave voters support youth mobility, suggesting a reservoir of public goodwill, yet immigration remains a volatile issue.

On the EU side, member states, led by powerhouses like France and Germany, insist on a bloc-wide agreement to prevent the UK from securing bespoke bilateral deals, a strategy perceived as “cherry-picking.” The negotiations are further complicated by linkages to other priorities, including fisheries access post-2026 and veterinary agreements, creating a multifaceted diplomatic tapestry.

Broader Implications

The youth mobility scheme, if realized, promises to rejuvenate opportunities curtailed by Brexit, fostering cross-cultural exchange and addressing labor shortages in sectors like hospitality. Over 60 Labour MPs, alongside advocacy groups like the European Movement UK, champion the initiative for its economic and cultural dividends. Universities, too, see it as a lifeline to restore their global allure, particularly in the lucrative English language teaching sector.

Yet, challenges abound. In the EU, high youth unemployment in countries like Spain—where over 25% of under-25s are jobless—raises concerns about exacerbating domestic pressures. In the UK, the government must navigate fiscal constraints and public skepticism to secure a deal that aligns with national interests.

Looking Ahead

As negotiations progress, the UK and EU stand at a crossroads. The youth mobility scheme, while modest in scope, represents a tangible step toward mending post-Brexit fractures. The prospect of rejoining Erasmus+ looms as a potential milestone, contingent on navigating the intricate interplay of financial, political, and logistical considerations. With both sides poised for further talks, the coming months will determine whether this initiative heralds a new chapter in UK-EU collaboration or succumbs to the perennial tensions of sovereignty and reciprocity.

Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Move to Bar Harvard from Enrolling International Students

A federal judge has temporarily halted a controversial decision by the Trump administration to revoke Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students, marking the latest flashpoint in a growing battle between the federal government and one of America’s most prestigious academic institutions.

US District Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order just hours after Harvard filed a legal complaint on Friday. The university challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s abrupt move to terminate its certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), a key requirement for hosting foreign students.

Harvard’s lawsuit argues that the administration’s action represents an unlawful and politically motivated act of retribution for the university’s resistance to a set of ideologically driven federal demands. The complaint also frames the revocation as a violation of Harvard’s First Amendment rights and due process under federal law.

Burroughs, appointed during the Obama administration, stated in her ruling that the university demonstrated it would suffer “immediate and irreparable injury” if stripped of its SEVP certification before the court could evaluate the matter further. A hearing to determine whether to impose a preliminary injunction is scheduled for May 29 in Boston.

A Broader Conflict Over Autonomy and Policy

The legal conflict emerges amid wider tensions between the Trump administration and elite academic institutions. The White House has accused Harvard of failing to adequately address antisemitism on campus and demanded changes to its admissions and hiring practices. The administration has also criticized the university’s diversity and inclusion initiatives, which it perceives as discriminatory against conservative viewpoints.

The Department of Homeland Security, under the leadership of Secretary Kristi Noem, asserted that Harvard failed to comply with a recent request for disciplinary records involving foreign students, deeming the university’s response “insufficient.” However, Harvard maintains that it submitted the requested information and was given no chance to respond before being abruptly removed from the SEVP.

“The revocation notice provided no opportunity for Harvard to contest the decision, present supporting evidence, or demonstrate compliance,” the lawsuit claims.

This legal maneuver is not Harvard’s first against the federal government. In a separate but related case, Judge Burroughs is also overseeing the university’s challenge to a $2.65 billion freeze in federal research and grant funding imposed by the administration. While Harvard has yet to request immediate relief in that case, the cumulative legal pressure underscores what the university describes as a pattern of political retaliation.

Fallout for International Students

The implications for Harvard’s international students—who comprise over 27% of the student body—are substantial. The university currently hosts approximately 6,800 students from abroad, with significant representation from countries such as China, India, Canada, South Korea, and the UK.

For many of these students, the administration’s move sparked intense anxiety and uncertainty. Without SEVP certification, Harvard cannot issue the I-20 forms necessary for student visa processing, effectively jeopardizing the legal status of current students and the plans of incoming ones.

Alan Garber, Harvard’s interim president, issued a strongly worded statement decrying the decision. “With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body—international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission,” he said. “We condemn this unlawful and unwarranted action.”

International students, some of whom were preparing for graduation, expressed feelings of fear and displacement. Rohan Battula, a junior from the UK planning to work in New York this summer, chose to remain on campus amid fears that travel might prevent his return. “It’s surreal to think that, for a moment, we were considered unlawfully present in a country where we’re earning a degree,” he told the BBC.

Isaac Bangura, a public administration student from Sierra Leone, shared that the threat of deportation unsettled his young children. “They’ve been asking if we’re being sent home again,” he said, recalling the trauma of surviving a civil war before moving to the US with his family.

Political Reactions and Financial Stakes

The White House responded sharply to the court ruling. Deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson accused the judge of promoting a “liberal agenda” and criticized Harvard for failing to address what she termed the presence of “anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agitators” on campus. “These unelected judges have no right to block the Trump administration’s immigration and national security policies,” she added.

Homeland Security officials reinforced their stance, with Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stating, “This lawsuit seeks to kneecap the President’s constitutionally vested powers. It is a privilege—not a right—for universities to enroll foreign students and profit from inflated tuition payments.”

President Trump, addressing reporters at the White House, hinted at further scrutiny of other institutions. “Harvard is going to have to change its ways,” he said. “So are some others.”

Beyond reputational damage and student distress, the policy shift also threatens Harvard’s financial structure. International students typically pay full tuition, which can exceed $100,000 annually when including housing, meals, and other expenses—revenues that often subsidize financial aid for domestic students. A loss in international enrollment would likely have deep fiscal implications.

A Legal Battle With National Implications

The case is emblematic of broader debates over academic freedom, immigration policy, and the limits of executive authority. Legal scholars suggest that Harvard has strong footing in the lower courts, particularly in Massachusetts, which has historically ruled against similar federal actions. However, should the dispute escalate to the Supreme Court, the outcome becomes less certain.

Harvard has already made some concessions under pressure—reportedly dismissing certain leaders from its Center for Middle Eastern Studies. At the same time, the university has fortified its legal team with prominent Republican attorneys, including Robert Hur, a former special counsel in the Biden documents inquiry.

Harvard’s Vice Provost for International Affairs, Mark Elliott, emphasized the broader stakes: “There is simply no substitute for the presence and contributions of international students. Unless the court intervenes swiftly, future generations may view Harvard—and the United States—as too unstable a choice for higher education.”