Dmitri Smirnov, a deaf Russian painter, refused permanent residency in Canada because he failed verbal language tests | Canada | News | National Post
Deaf Russian painter refused permanent residency in Canada because he failed verbal language tests
John Ulan/National Post
In his application, Dmitri Smirnov also included results from Canadian Hearing Society tests for his abilities in sign language: 9.2 out of 10 for expressive skills (analogous to “speaking”) and 9 out of 10 for receptive skills (analogous to “listening”).
A Russian painter, deaf since birth, has been refused permanent residency in Canada because he did not meet the language proficiency requirement when tested verbally, despite getting near perfect scores when tested using sign language.
The decision to reject Dmitri Smirnov’s bid to remain in Canada because he did not meet listening and speaking language requirements angered deaf advocates who blasted it as discriminatory and called for American Sign Language to be seen as equivalent to English and French for immigration purposes.
“I’m shocked that the criteria of verbalizing and speaking is necessary to come to Canada,” said Chris Kenopic, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Hearing Society. “Rejecting people from our country because of that is very unfortunate.”I’m shocked that the criteria of verbalizing and speaking is necessary to come to Canada
Speaking through an American Sign Language interpreter, Mr. Kenopic said he is offended by the decision and what it says about the government’s view of deaf citizens.
“The issue is that the federal government is not recognizing sign language as a means of communication. It leads me to ask, how do they see me?” he asked.
Mr. Smirnov was born deaf in Russia and primarily communicates using sign language. He found schools in Russia not sufficiently adapted for deaf students and moved to the United States, where he became fluent in American Sign Language.
He moved to Canada in 2006 and has lived and worked here as a commercial and residential painter. His work permit expires in a year and he applied to stay in Canada as a permanent resident.
Among the requirements is language proficiency in either of Canada’s official languages. This proved difficult.
With his International English Language Testing System reading and writing marks, test officials noted that due to Mr. Smirnov’s extreme hearing and speaking difficulties he was exempt from the speaking and listening tests. Instead, they guessed, according to court records, giving him marks “notionalized” from his other marks.
In his application, Mr. Smirnov also included results from Canadian Hearing Society tests for his abilities in sign language: 9.2 out of 10 for expressive skills (analogous to “speaking”) and 9 out of 10 for receptive skills (analogous to “listening”).
Mr. Smirnov appealed to the Federal Court of Canada, arguing the sign language marks should have been taken into account and claiming the rules discriminate against the deaf.
Mr. Smirnov’s Ottawa lawyer, Peter Stieda, argued the requirements to read, listen, speak and write in English or French violate Mr. Smirnov’s Charter rights, which guarantee the law will apply equally to all without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
No deaf person could become a permanent resident under the experience class under the current regulations and the government needs to treat sign language as equivalent to fluency in English or French, said Mr. Stieda.
In court, the government argued the immigration officer’s decision to reject Mr. Smirnov was reasonable.
The government said Mr. Smirnov did not present evidence that deafness can damage reading and writing marks so no special accommodation was required, and the sign language marks became irrelevant since all of Mr. Smirnov’s other language testing was below what is required.
Federal Court Justice Richard Boivin ruled last month that the facts of the case and lack of evidence adduced at trial caused him to dismiss both the Charter challenge and Mr. Smirnov’s appeal of the immigration decision.
“It is a deeply disappointing decision. Mr. Smirnov clearly was able to demonstrate he was able to integrate into in the community,” said Mr. Stieda.
“This case illustrates the difficulties involved in attempting to standardize the immigrant section criteria to ‘one size fits all’ and to remove the human decision-making element from the equation,” said Sergio R. Karas, a Toronto immigration lawyer and past chair of the Ontario Bar Association’s Citizenship and Immigration Section.
“The lack of flexibility in applying the language requirements to applicants who are very well qualified for their positions and have proven that they can function without problems in the work environment leads to ridiculous results,” he said.
National Post
The decision to reject Dmitri Smirnov’s bid to remain in Canada because he did not meet listening and speaking language requirements angered deaf advocates who blasted it as discriminatory and called for American Sign Language to be seen as equivalent to English and French for immigration purposes.
“I’m shocked that the criteria of verbalizing and speaking is necessary to come to Canada,” said Chris Kenopic, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Hearing Society. “Rejecting people from our country because of that is very unfortunate.”I’m shocked that the criteria of verbalizing and speaking is necessary to come to Canada
Speaking through an American Sign Language interpreter, Mr. Kenopic said he is offended by the decision and what it says about the government’s view of deaf citizens.
“The issue is that the federal government is not recognizing sign language as a means of communication. It leads me to ask, how do they see me?” he asked.
Mr. Smirnov was born deaf in Russia and primarily communicates using sign language. He found schools in Russia not sufficiently adapted for deaf students and moved to the United States, where he became fluent in American Sign Language.
He moved to Canada in 2006 and has lived and worked here as a commercial and residential painter. His work permit expires in a year and he applied to stay in Canada as a permanent resident.
Among the requirements is language proficiency in either of Canada’s official languages. This proved difficult.
With his International English Language Testing System reading and writing marks, test officials noted that due to Mr. Smirnov’s extreme hearing and speaking difficulties he was exempt from the speaking and listening tests. Instead, they guessed, according to court records, giving him marks “notionalized” from his other marks.
In his application, Mr. Smirnov also included results from Canadian Hearing Society tests for his abilities in sign language: 9.2 out of 10 for expressive skills (analogous to “speaking”) and 9 out of 10 for receptive skills (analogous to “listening”).
This case illustrates the difficulties involved in attempting to standardize the immigrant section criteria to ‘one size fits all’In November, Mr. Smirnov’s application was refused. An immigration officer was not satisfied he met the official language proficiency requirement.
Mr. Smirnov appealed to the Federal Court of Canada, arguing the sign language marks should have been taken into account and claiming the rules discriminate against the deaf.
Mr. Smirnov’s Ottawa lawyer, Peter Stieda, argued the requirements to read, listen, speak and write in English or French violate Mr. Smirnov’s Charter rights, which guarantee the law will apply equally to all without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
No deaf person could become a permanent resident under the experience class under the current regulations and the government needs to treat sign language as equivalent to fluency in English or French, said Mr. Stieda.
In court, the government argued the immigration officer’s decision to reject Mr. Smirnov was reasonable.
The government said Mr. Smirnov did not present evidence that deafness can damage reading and writing marks so no special accommodation was required, and the sign language marks became irrelevant since all of Mr. Smirnov’s other language testing was below what is required.
Federal Court Justice Richard Boivin ruled last month that the facts of the case and lack of evidence adduced at trial caused him to dismiss both the Charter challenge and Mr. Smirnov’s appeal of the immigration decision.
“It is a deeply disappointing decision. Mr. Smirnov clearly was able to demonstrate he was able to integrate into in the community,” said Mr. Stieda.
“This case illustrates the difficulties involved in attempting to standardize the immigrant section criteria to ‘one size fits all’ and to remove the human decision-making element from the equation,” said Sergio R. Karas, a Toronto immigration lawyer and past chair of the Ontario Bar Association’s Citizenship and Immigration Section.
“The lack of flexibility in applying the language requirements to applicants who are very well qualified for their positions and have proven that they can function without problems in the work environment leads to ridiculous results,” he said.
National Post
No comments:
Post a Comment