The Evidence of Language Proficiency – The Integrity Concerns with Respect to Language Testing Results

Last Updated on April 17, 2015

The Evidence of Language Proficiency – The Integrity Concerns with Respect to Language Testing Results

Situations could arise where some officers might express their concerns about the integrity of the language test results. In this scenario, these individuals could utilise the following options.

• Accept the test scores
• The officer would need to verify the test scores and the integrity of the testing procedures with the local testing centre for the case in question
• Once satisfied that there is no fraud or malfeasance concerning testing procedures or results, the officer will accept the test scores
• Refuse the test scores
• If the officer finds that there is sufficient evidence for establishing fraud or malfeasance with respect to testing procedures or results, then the officer has the authority to refuse the application for misrepresentation

It is worth noting that officers will not consider interviews as a worthwhile means of evaluating language proficiency. Therefore, officers will not be able to change language point awards or make new language pass or fail assessments based on what the officers discover during the interview.

However, situations could arise where the officers interview an applicant for any other reason. Thereafter, they might across significant discrepancies between claimed and actual language proficiency, resulting in an integrity issue.

Similarly, situations could arise where the officers are not satisfied about the applicant’s language proficiency. However, they might not have sufficient evidence for establishing fraud or malfeasance in the testing procedures for the case in question and for substantiating a refusal for misrepresentation. In this scenario, the officers would need notify the applicant of their concerns. Thereafter, they would need to provide an opportunity to the applicant for taking a second test at the testing agency’s expense and with visa office supervision. However, they would only do this in coordination with the testing agency.

In case the applicant refuses the third-party language testing option, the officers would need to refuse the application for misrepresentation. This is appropriate given the discrepancy between the testing scores and the actual language abilities of the applicant.

Situations could arise where officers have sufficient grounds for suspecting the integrity of the designated language test results. In this scenario, they would be responsible for expressing their concerns to the local testing centre. In addition, they would need to communicate their concerns to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) Headquarters.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) Headquarters is on constant touch with the designated testing organisations’ head offices. Therefore, it can follow up on the concerns raised by officers that could indicate the possibility of widespread or systemic abuse or fraud in all situations concerning the testing of language proficiency of applicants.

Note:

• Officers might need to determine the delegated authority for making a determination under A40 (1) (a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)
• For obtaining more information on this, they would need to refer to IL 3 – Designation of Officers and Delegation of Authority given on the website of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)

Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)