The Complexities of Translating in the Immigration Courts

Guest Blogger: Carla Lopez Perez, First-year law student, University of San Francisco School of Law.

It is no secret that interpreters are essential to individuals who have limited proficiency in English in relation to the immigration court system in the United States. Therefore, it would not be an understatement to say that interpreters are crucial to an immigrant who is applying for immigration relief either affirmatively through the asylum office or defensively in an immigration court. In these arenas, interpreters provide a link between the immigrant and the person making a decision to their claim, in most cases an immigration judge or asylum officer. The interpreter is essentially the voice for the immigrant and is helping the immigrant disclose their story, make their case, and communicate the urgency to remain in the country.

The ability to have an interpreter present in an individual’s case can be vital in obtaining a positive result in one’s case. According to a 2011 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, when an individual finds himself in immigration court without an interpreter, the final “result is that people lose their freedom, families, livelihoods, and homes because of simple misunderstandings.” Fortunately, in August 2000, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an executive order requiring “all federal agencies to provide ‘meaningful access’” to individuals who have limited proficiency in English. More specifically, the order requires, “a) the provision of interpreters ‘during all hearings, trials, and motions during which the LEP individual must and/or may be present,’ b) screening to ensure that the interpreters possess the specialized skills and knowledge necessary for court interpretation.”

Although mandatory per the executive order, the future of interpreters inside of the immigration courts was uncertain for several months toward the end of 2015, going into early 2016. Last July, the DOJ switched over to a new contractor, SOS International (SOSi). This new contract created a rift between interpreters and the new contractor, and in October 2015, as many as 100 interpreters had already refused to sign the contract. According to ThinkProgress, “Interpreters cited ‘low pay, inconsistent and often insufficient travel reimbursement policies, and a general sense of being undervalued given the importance of the work.’” This is a problem in a court system that is already fragile and ridden with hearing delays. A decrease in the number of interpreters willing to sign the new contract means that there will be a decrease in the number of interpreters able to take on work. In the end, immigrants are the ones to suffer the consequences as many will not have anyone to interpret for them at their hearings causing the hearings themselves to be delayed to a later date.

Earlier this year the tensions deepened when interpreters, in the hundreds, working inside of the immigration courts told BuzzFeed News that they have not been paid for their interpretation services as far back as November. According to BuzzFeed News, in February, “immigration contract interpreters sent a letter to SOSi demanding they be paid in a timely manner.” They also let the news source know that there were concerns “that SOSi may be outsourcing its qualification testing to an interpreting school.” In relation to this, the group believes that, “placing interpreter testing and quality assurance oversight in the hands of the school would undermine transparency.” The consequence of this oversight might mean fewer competent interpreters in the court room in order to fill the need for cheaper interpreting services.

As previously stated, interpreters are crucial in immigration court and the possibility of incompetent translations is a critical problem that should be avoided at all costs. One of the many things that could go wrong is that less competent interpreters may incorrectly interpret a crucial part of an individual’s testimony or may even incorrectly interpret a question. Although inconsistencies in translation should not give an immigration judge reason to believe an immigrant’s credibility, it could in fact lead to dire credibility issues. The ultimate result from these language-related misunderstandings could result in an immigrant’s deportation.

bh