I am contacting you to obtain a bit of advice.
I am a Sri Lankan medical doctor attempting to apply for PR to Canada.
I did my IELTS in July 2010. My problem is that I did the Academic version (which was accepted for migration at the time). Now I have been told by my migration lawyers that I would have to sit for the General version.

My question is, do you think there is any chance they may consider a waiver in this matter?
I have done all my schooling in English, have sat for 2 Academic IELTS, the first for which I received 8 out of 9 and this time 8.5 out of 9.
I find it difficult to believe that they would reject Academic when Academic is more difficult that General.

I know I can do the General IELTS again, but I am really packed for time with work, kids, exams for a Masters coming up and other family issues.
Would really appreciate your input on this.

Many thanks,
Mayoni Ranasinghe

_____________________________________________

Note: The “required test” is a British based test called the IELTS.

To begin with a good example of parallel sentence structure, a great American president once commented:

“…that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Clearly his definition of “earth” would not have included Canada.

A government of the people, by the people and for the people would (at a minimum) include respect for the law of the land. The requirement of the IELTS does not respect the current law.

There are both long term and short terms problems here.

The long term problem is that, by requiring the IELTS, the government is not in compliance with the current immigration regulations. It seems that the government thinks that laws are to be applied to the people and not to be obeyed by the government. As this article points out:

“Section 79 of the regulations of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states that skilled worker applicants may choose to submit to a language test or provide written evidence of their proficiency. Last month, Mr. Kenney issued a ministerial instruction, effective immediately, that said only applicants who write a test will be considered.”

These professors should simply, follow the requirements OF THE LAW and submit “written evidence of their proficiency”.

The short term problem (and I say short term because a requirement that so clearly conflicts with the law has no chance surviving a court challenge) is the requirement of the IELTS itself.

The IELTS like the TOEFL, was designed to allow non-English speaking immigrants to demonstrate their proficiency in English. It was not designed for native English speakers. This is the reason for the current regulation which allows applicants to submit “written evidence of proficiency”.

Forcing native English speakers to pass the IELTS is dumb.

But, a failure to comply with the law of the land is “dumber” (yes, this should be the comparative and not the superlative).

Globe and Mail Userid = theindependent