Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
不同国家的学生签转工作签政策比较：加拿大、澳大利亚、新西兰、英国、美国哪个更容易？
Executive summary
Available sources returned by your search do not mention or compare international student-to-work visa switching rules for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, or the USA; therefore I cannot cite direct policy comparisons from these results (not found in current reporting). The search results mostly contain calendars and general 2025 reports unrelated to immigration or post‑study work rights (for example, calendar pages [1], [2] and overview pages for 2025 [3]). Below I explain what the available results cover, what is missing, and how that limits any reliable ranking of “which is easiest.”
1. What your provided search results actually contain — and why that matters
The documents returned focus on calendars for November 2025 and broad annual reporting (examples: printable November calendars [4], a Canva November 2025 page [2], and a Wikipedia year overview [3]). None of the indexed pages discuss student visas, post‑study work permissions, bridging visas, employer‑sponsored transitions, or immigration rules for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, or the US (not found in current reporting). Because my mandate is to cite only the supplied sources, I cannot invent or infer policy details from outside reporting (not found in current reporting).
2. Why I can’t produce a fair “which is easier” ranking from these results
Comparing ease of switching from a student to a work visa requires up‑to‑date rules on eligibility, permitted work while studying, allowed post‑study work durations, employer sponsorship pathways, labour‑market tests, and processing times. The supplied set lacks any of that material — only calendrical and broad‑year resources are present (examples: calendar/holiday pages [1], [5] and 2025 reports [6]) — so any attempt to rank countries would be unsupported by the available evidence (not found in current reporting).
3. What you should look for in authoritative sources when comparing these policies
A robust comparison requires: official immigration pages from each country’s government (e.g., IRCC for Canada, Home Office for the UK, Department of Home Affairs for Australia, Immigration NZ, USCIS/Department of State for the US); recent policy changes or announced reforms; concrete numbers on post‑study work length and eligibility; details on employer sponsorship or skilled‑worker routes; and processing‑time statistics. The current result set does not include those government pages, so I cannot cite them here (not found in current reporting).
4. Common factors that typically determine “ease” — for future searches
When you run targeted searches, compare: whether post‑study work is automatic or requires a separate application; maximum post‑study work duration; whether employers must prove local recruitment first; whether international graduates get priority or points for skilled migration; and real‑world processing times. None of these factors appear in the provided links (not found in current reporting). Use official immigration sites and recent policy analyses to capture those items.
5. Suggested next steps and precise search terms to get usable sources
Search government domains and up‑to‑date legal or university international‑student guidance. Example queries: “Canada post‑graduation work permit eligibility IRCC 2025,” “Australia Temporary Graduate visa subclass 485 rules 2025 Department of Home Affairs,” “Immigration New Zealand post-study work visa 2025,” “UK Graduate route 2025 Home Office,” and “US OPT STEM extension 2025 USCIS/ICE.” Those searches should yield the authoritative policy texts and allow a cited comparison — the current dataset does not include them (not found in current reporting).
6. Transparency about limitations and possible biases
Because I must use only your supplied search results, my analysis is constrained. The supplied materials are largely non‑immigration (calendar and broad 2025 items), so any definitive claims about which country is “easiest” would be unsupported and violate the sourcing rule. Also note that government sites can reflect policy aims (attracting talent) and advocacy or industry pieces can have agendas (promoting immigration‑friendly narratives); you should compare multiple official and third‑party sources once available.
If you want, provide additional search results (official immigration pages or recent policy summaries) and I will produce a sourced country‑by‑country comparison and a clear ranking based on the factors above.