New Research Illuminating the Gaps in Interpretation within Texas Immigration Courts
By Edith Maria Muleiro
Edith Maria Muleiro of the University of Texas at Austin has produced a thesis that highlights the many ways in which interpretation inadequacies make asylum nearly impossible to obtain. She based part of her research on conversations with the Respond Crisis Translation team. Below is a summary of her findings in her own words:
Photo by Karen Neoh.
“Imagine standing in a new and unfamiliar country before a judge, fighting for your life. A form in a language you do not understand was given to you with critical information about your hearing. And you know your life depends on understanding it.”
Imagine standing in a new and unfamiliar country before a judge, fighting for your life. A form in a language you do not understand was given to you with critical information about your hearing. And you know your life depends on understanding it. 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. This 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 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. Using models such as Respond Crisis Translation and other language collectives I was able to build a picture of the potential which exists within the United States to realize language justice within spaces which serve immigrants.
This study owes many thanks to RCT for its work and leadership. Although this study began with a focus on Language Access, throughout my research I learned more and more about Language Justice. One study participant explained it to me as the distinction between Prison Reform and Prison Abolition work, Reform being Access and Abolition being Justice.
“…language Justice can’t exist in it’s true form within the US immigration system.”
I was able to further understand the ways in which this framework is integrated through conversations with Ariel Koren, RCT’s founder. We discussed freedom of mobility, language democracy and removing the barriers and descrimintation which people experience currently based on their native language. By working collectively to advocate for changes in language policy and bringing attention to the gaps within the interpretation provided by the US government, we can begin to highlight the benefits of Language Justice. From this research I have come to understand that currently Language Justice can’t exist in it’s true form within the US immigration system. These systems must be reimagined, broken down, and rebuilt within the communities of support which exist across the country. My hope is that Lost in Translation: Interpretation as a Barrier to Asylum in Texas Immigration Courts will serve as another piece of this work and process, an indication to look deeper into the seemingly small parts of these processes.
“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...”
The information studied in this research is critical in reaching a deeper understanding of the needs of interpretation in court for 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 research indicates otherwise, showing 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. Future research on this topic should focus on respondents' voices as well, who unfortunately were not included in this study due to COVID-19 restrictions.
“My research indicates otherwise, showing 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.”
My research is currently in the process of publication. Please feel free to reach out if you have any follow up questions: edithmuleiro@utexas.edu.
References Cited:
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Executive Office for Immigration Review Statistics: Hearing Language, April 15, 2020. https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1248496/download
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. https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2015/LanguageAccessPlan.pdf
