April 2021: “Lost in Translation: Interpretation as a Barrier to Asylum in Texas Immigration Courts”

By Edith Muleiro, The University of Texas at Austin

Language influences our lives in many ways. For some this influence may be subtle, but in a courtroom the ability to understand and be understood becomes the determining factor in one’s future.

Imagine standing in a new and unfamiliar country before a judge. A form in English was given to you with the date and address for your hearing. With significant difficulty you were able to translate the information from a language you had never studied or spoken before, knowing that if you did not you would instantly lose your chance at asylum. The language you hear and see around you is further complicated by the legal jargon which is interlaced into all the messaging you receive. A representative of the court hands you a headset by which you will communicate with the interpreter, a figure to the right of the judge. Through this headset you must retell some of your most difficult stories so that they can be communicated through the mouth of an interpreter, a stranger. You speak directly to the judge and they to you but the key to reaching understanding, being granted asylum, and achieving safety sits to their right. You must trust that this interpreter has been trained, that they understand the way trauma can warp your stories and the specific language variety that you use, which is rarely taught in a typical US Spanish-language class.

My undergraduate honors thesis Lost in Translation: Interpretation as a Barrier to Asylum in Texas Immigration Courts, conducted from January to December 2020, focuses on the sociolinguistic experience of actors in immigration court. While some may say the goal of the interpreter is to remain an invisible figure in the courtroom, this actor plays a critical role in immigration law by making sure that the respondent can engage in their hearings. I first noticed the complexities of interpretation when I served as an interpreter myself in legal clinics and detention centers in Texas. These experiences led me to question the ways in which law and language interact in the courtroom, specifically in regard to interpretation. To learn more about the quality, access and impact of interpretation services, I conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 professionals who work in social service and judicial systems related to immigration courts in Texas.

My research focused on six areas: interpreter training, work conditions, pathways for reporting interpretation errors and untrained interpreters, telephonic interpretation, translation of documents and interpretation for detained respondents. Findings from each of these areas highlighted the gaps and oversights within the implementation of the Language Access Plan of the US government.

My thesis includes a broad analysis of this linguistic context, including the limited training provided to interpreters, the lack of translation of documents (such as the notice to appear in court), and specific issues related to interpretation via telephonic lines and video teleconference, among others. This research seeks to shed light on the ways in which the limitations put in place by US government policy and the oversights of its Language Access Plan result in lower interpretation standards and quality, as well as an administrative burden that weighs on those who move through the system, jeopardizing their access to asylum.

This information is critical in achieving a deeper understanding of the needs of interpretation in court for both respondents and interpreters. Interpretation service demands attention. Not only is it frequently used, with 92.39% of hearings conducted in a language other than English, but it is also a critical part of the government’s argument that due process is being upheld within the courts (EOIR, 2020). My thesis shows that the current quality of interpretation leaves interpreters, judges, attorneys and respondents unable to carry out their roles in court due to the limited training and lack of resources invested in interpretation. It is my hope that future research will focus more on this topic, specifically on the experience of respondents, whose voices were not included in this study due to COVID-19 research restrictions.

References Cited:

Executive Office for Immigration Review, Executive Office for Immigration Review Statistics: Hearing Language, April 15, 2020.

Herd, Pamela, and Donald P. Moynihan. Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation, 2019.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Language Access Plan,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2015.