monolayers, assuming a uniform distribution of Mn ions and magnetic moments throughout the (Ga,Mn)As film. This is around a factor of three thinner than in Ref. $^{7}$, which could be due to the lower Mn concentration or the different preparation method of the present samples. samples $^{15}$, the projected Mn 3 d magnetic moments are obtained as − 1.4 µ$_{B}$ and +0.8 µ$_{B}$ per ion at remanence and 1000 Oe, respectively. 3 The difference between these values can be understood as being due to an interface layer which is strongly anti- ferromagnetically coupled to the Fe layer. At zero field, both the interfacial and bulk Mn are aligned antiparallel to the Fe layer. At high fields, the bulk of the (Ga,Mn)As layer away from the interface is re-oriented into the exter- nal field direction. However, the interfacial Mn remains antiparallel to the Fe layer and thus partially compen- sates the XMCD signal from the bulk of the (Ga,Mn)As. From the size of the remanent and 1000 Oe magnetic moments, it can be estimated that around 25-30% of the TEY XMCD signal can be ascribed to the interfacial Mn which is strongly coupled to the Fe moments. In summary, we have demonstrated antiferromagnetic coupling between Fe and (Ga,Mn)As layers in bilayer structures. A markedly different coupling is observed for the bulk of the (Ga,Mn)As layer and for Mn moments in the near-interface region. A thickness-dependent ex- change bias field is observed to affect the whole of the bulk (Ga,Mn)As layer, which aligns antiparallel to the Fe layer at low fields, and switches to parallel when the external field is large enough to overcome the bias field and the magnetocrystalline anisotropy fields. In contrast, the interfacial Mn moments remain aligned antiparallel to the Fe layer even at 20 kOe, the largest field studied, and are polarized at temperatures well above the T$_{C}$ of the bulk (Ga,Mn)As layer. The latter observation con- firms the recently reported result of Ref. 7, in which the Fe/(Ga,Mn)As bilayers were produced by a different method but showed qualitatively similar behavior of the interfacial moments. Our results shed new light on the magnetic coupling in Fe/(Ga,Mn)As hybrid layers which are of potential interest for room temperature spintron- ics, and also offer a means of controlling the spin orien- tation in a FM semiconductor. The interfacial Mn moments are ascribed to the prox- imity polarization of the (Ga,Mn)As interface by the Fe layer, such as was shown previously by XMCD as well as ab initio theory $^{7}$. Evidence for this can be observed from measurement of the Mn L$_{2}$$_{,}$$_{3}$ XMCD signal at tempera- tures above the (Ga,Mn)As T$_{C}$ . Similar to the previous study $^{7}$, we observe a small but not negligible signal at room temperature (Fig. 3), with opposite sign to the Fe L$_{2}$$_{,}$$_{3}$ XMCD. Its spectral shape is characteristic of a local- ized electronic configuration close to d $^{5}$, similar to bulk (Ga,Mn)As 7,9,15 but in contrast to Mn in more metallic environments such as Mn$_{x}$Fe$_{1}$$_{−}$$_{x}$ 7 or MnAs $^{16}$. A slight broadening is observed on the low energy side of the Mn L$_{3}$ peak, which may be due to the different screening in- duced by proximity to the Fe layer. Since the measured intensity is attenuated with distance z from the surface as I = I$_{0}$ exp( − z/λ$_{TEY}$ ), the thickness of the strongly coupled interface layer is estimated to be ∼ 0.7 nm or 2-3 We acknowledge support from EU grants SemiSpinNet-215368 and NAMASTE-214499, and STFC studentship grant CMPC07100. The Advanced Light Source is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. We thank Leigh Shelford for help during the Diamond beamtime. 15 T. Jungwirth, J. Masek, K. Y. Wang, K. W. Edmonds, 14 B. T. Thole, P. Carra, F. Sette, and G. van der Laan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 , 1943 (1992); P. Carra, B. T. Thole, M. Altarelli, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 , 694 (1993). 13 K. F. Eid, M. B. Stone, K. C. Ku, O. Maksimov, P. Schiffer, N. Samarth, T. C. Shih and C. J. Palmstrom, Appl. Phys. Lett. 85 , 1556 (2004). 12 J. Nogues and I. K. Schuller, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 192 , 203 (1999). 11 C. Won, Y.Z. Wu, E. Arenholz, J. Choi, J. Wu, and Z. Q. Qiu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 , 077203 (2007). 10 Ch. Binek, S. Polisetty, X. He and A. Berger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 , 067201 (2006). 9 F. Maccherozzi, G. Panaccione, G. Rossi, M. Hochstrasser, M. Sperl, M. Reinwald, G. Woltersdorf, W. Wegscheider, and C. H. Back, Phys. Rev. B 74 , 104421 (2006). 8 R. P. Campion, K. W. Edmonds, L. X. Zhao, K. Y. Wang, C. T. Foxon, B. L. Gallagher, and C. R. Staddon, J. Crys- tal Growth 247 , 42 (2003). 1 T. Jungwirth, W. A. Atkinson, B. H. Lee, and A. H. Mac- Donald, Phys. Rev. B 59 , 9818 (1999); P. Sankowski and P. Kacman, Phys. Rev. B 71 , 201303(R) (2005); A. D. Giddings, T. Jungwirth, and B. L. Gallagher, Phys. Rev. B 78 , 165312 (2008); K. Szalowski and T. Balcerzak, Phys. Rev. B 79 , 214430 (2009). 2 J.-H. Chung, S. J. Chung, S. Lee, B. J. Kirby, J. A. Borchers, Y. J. Cho, X. Liu, and J. K. Furdyna, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 , 237202 (2008). 3 M. Wang, R. P. Campion, A. W. Rushforth, K. W. Ed- monds, C. T. Foxon, and R. P. Campion, Appl. Phys. Lett. 93 , 132103 (2008). 4 M. Zhu, M. J. Wilson, B. L. Sheu, P. Mitra, P. Schiffer, and N. Samarth, Appl. Phys. Lett. 91 , 192503 (2007); M. Zhu, M. J. Wilson, P. Mitra, P. Schiffer, and N. Samarth, Phys. Rev. B 78 , 195307 (2008). 5 S. Mark, C. Gould, K. Pappert, J. Wenisch, K. Brunner, G. Schmidt, and L. W. Molenkamp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 , 017204 (2009). 6 G. Wastlbauer and J.A.C. Bland, Adv. Phys. 54 , 137 (2005). 7 F. Maccherozzi, M. Sperl, G. Panaccione, J. Minar, S. Polesya, H. Ebert, U. Wurstbauer, M. Hochstrasser, G. Rossi, G. Woltersdorf, W. Wegscheider, and C. H. Back, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 , 267201 (2008).