During the height of the pandemic, the Asylum Offices provided interpreters for applicants. However, since September 2023, USCIS has required asylum applicants to bring their own interpreter to the interview. This can be a problem for some applicants, as interpreters can be expensive. Also, some interpreters are better than others, and a bad interpreter can make it more difficult to win your asylum case.
Today, we’ll discuss who can serve as an interpreter. We’ll also talk about how to work with an interpreter, and provide some tips for the interpreters themselves. (more…)
Last week, USCIS announced a new rule for interpreters at Asylum Office interviews. Starting immediately, most asylum applicants should not bring their own interpreter to the interview, as had been the practice up until now. Instead, USCIS will provide an interpreter by telephone for most languages. The reason for the change is, of course, the coronavirus pandemic. This new rule will be in effect until at least March 22, 2021.
There are a few interesting tidbits contained in the rule’s preface, and here, I want to discuss those, as well as the effect of the new rule, plus some tips on working with telephonic interpreters.
One tidbit is statistical. To justify the new rule, USCIS cites some numbers indicating how serious the pandemic is. As of July 31, 2020, “there were approximately 17,106,007 cases of COVID-19 globally, resulting in approximately 668,910 deaths; approximately 4,405,932 cases have been identified in the United States, with new cases being reported daily, and approximately 150,283 reported deaths due to the disease.” This grim assessment by the U.S. government itself seems largely at odds with the picture painted by President Trump, who has pretty consistently underplayed the severity of the pandemic (at least in public, if not to Bob Woodward).
When using a telephonic interpreter, be sure to speak loudly into the phone.
Another interesting tidbit relates to the affirmative asylum backlog. Since the advent of the Trump Administration, the Asylum Office has become more tight lipped about its data, and so we receive fewer updates about the backlog (or anything else). But according to the new rule, as of “July 31, 2020, USCIS had 370,948 asylum applications, on behalf of 589,187 aliens, pending final adjudication.” “Over 94% of these pending applications are awaiting an interview by an asylum officer.” This means that as of July 31, the current affirmative asylum backlog was about 348,691 cases (meaning 348,691 cases were filed but not yet interviewed). Contrast this with the last time USCIS posted statistical information about asylum cases, which was for the period ending on September 30, 2019. At that time, the backlog stood at 339,836 cases. If all this data is correct (and I am never completely confident in the information we receive from USCIS these days), the backlog has grown by about 9,000 cases between October 1, 2019 and July 31, 2020.
If we believe these numbers, this means that the backlog grew faster in FY2019 than it did in FY2020. This may or may not be surprising, depending on your perspective. On the one hand, given that so few cases are being interviewed this year thanks to the pandemic, we might have expected the backlog to have grown more quickly. On the other hand, given that fewer asylum seekers are making it to the U.S., we might have expected the backlog to grow more slowly.
Finally, with regard to statistics, USCIS’s numbers indicate that 22,257 cases have been interviewed and are awaiting a decision. This seems like a lot to me, especially since Asylum Officers are interviewing fewer people because of the pandemic, and you’d think they’d have more time to finish cases that have already been interviewed.
Turning to the new rule itself, basically it means that when you go to an asylum interview, the government will provide you with a contract interpreter, who will attend the interview by phone. According to the new rule, “contract interpreters are carefully vetted and tested [and they] pass rigorous background checks as well as meet a high standard of competency.” In my experience, the contract interpreters are quite good, and I have never had a case where an interpreter caused a major problem. Prior to the new rule (and the coronavirus), applicants were required to bring their own interpreter, who assisted in person, while the contract interpreter monitored the interview by phone. Now, you are not allowed to bring your own interpreter, and you must use the telephonic interpreter.
Not all languages are covered by the new rule, but many are. USCIS contract interpreters are available for 47 languages. If your language is not on the list, you must bring your own interpreter.
If a contract interpreter is not available, the interview will be rescheduled and the delay will be attributed to USCIS for Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”) purposes (meaning that the Asylum Clock will not stop). On the flip side, if the applicant refuses to proceed with a USCIS contract interpreter, the Clock will stop, which will delay the EAD.
The new rule raises a few concerns. Probably the primary concern is whether asylum applicants will be comfortable with their interpreters. Will a woman who has been the victim of gender-based violence be comfortable if her interpreter is a man? I have heard anecdotally (and I believe it) that Asylum Officers are sensitive to this issue, and will check with the applicant before starting the interview. Also, if you prefer a male or female interpreter, you might ask in advance by emailing the Asylum Office before your interview. My sense is that the Asylum Office will do its best to accommodate such requests.
Another concern is that telephonic interpreters cannot as easily understand the applicant (or the Asylum Officer) and may not be able to convey emotion or nuance as well as they might if they were present in person. While I suspect that this is true, I think it is unlikely that missing such subtleties will make a difference in the outcome. Also, given the pandemic and the need for social distancing, it seems to me that we all need to make some adjustments.
All that said, how can you best work with a telephonic interpreter? Here are a few tips from a star interpreter, who has herself performed telephonic interpretations–
Keep your voice loud and clear. While this is important when working with on-site interpreters, it is even more important over the phone.
If you have a long statement, pause after a sentence or two so the interpreter can translate your words. After the interpreter is done, continue your response.
Don’t shuffle papers as you speak; you might as well stop talking because the interpreter will not be able to hear you.
Try not to talk over other people. The interpreter can only translate for one person at a time. Over the phone, it will be impossible for the interpreter to understand what is being said if people talk over each other. This could result in a statement by the applicant going unheard by the Asylum Officer–with potentially disastrous consequences.
Wait for the interpreter to finish interpreting before making another statement or asking a question.
If you don’t hear or can’t understand the interpreter, speak up!
All good advice to keep in mind at your interview.
Overall, my sense is that this new rule is reasonable and will hopefully allow more applicants to start attending interviews, while keeping everyone as safe as possible.
Tip o’ the fedora to Professor Lindsay M. Harris, Director of the Immigration & Human Rights Clinic at the University of the District of Columbia, and interpreter extraordinaire Maria Raquel McFadden, for their contributions to this article.
The word “translation” is derived from “trans,” meaning “across” two languages, and “elation,” meaning “to make your lawyer happy.” Or something like that. The point is, if your translations are correct, you are more likely to win your case and so you–and your lawyer–will be happy.
If you think accurate translations are not important, please stay away from my garden.
But many asylum seekers are unable (or unwilling) to pay for professional translations, which can be quite costly. Instead, they do the translations themselves, or they use a friend who speaks “good English” (technically, anyone who claims to speak “good English” does not speak English very well). The problem faced by these non-professionals is that translating documents is not as easy as it looks.
I ran into this problem recently, when a keen-eyed DHS attorney discovered that my client’s translations were incorrect. The client had submitted several translated documents when he applied for asylum at the Asylum Office (using a different lawyer). These documents included a newspaper article, a police report, and several witness letters. The quality of the translations was poor, and so we asked the client to obtain better translations. Unfortunately, the new translator embellished some of the translations. Instead of translating the documents literally, he tried to include what the writer meant (or what the translator believed the writer meant). This problem is all too common. Sometimes, I catch it, and other times, I don’t. In this particular case, the DHS attorney caught the inconsistency, which–to state the obvious–is not great for our case.
Poor translations can cause real problems for asylum cases. I have at least one case where an inaccurate translation resulted in the case being denied by the Asylum Office and referred to Immigration Court (where it remains pending 3+ years later–ugh).
So how do you ensure that your translations are correct? And what happens if you can’t afford a professional translator?
First, any document that is not in English must be translated into English. For each such document, you must submit a copy of the original document (in the foreign language), an English translation, and a certificate of translation (for an example certificate of translation, see the Immigration Court Practice Manual, Appendix H).
Second, the translation should be accurate. This seems like a no-brainer, but in my experience, it is not. Here, “accurate” means that the translator should–as much as possible–literally change each and every word of the original document into the equivalent English word. Some words are not easy to translate from one language to the next. Other words have symbolic, cultural or idiomatic meanings that may differ from their literal meaning (the word “jihad” is a good example). In that case, translate the word literally, and maybe include a footnote indicating the meaning or cultural significance of the word. The footnote should clearly indicate that it is not part of the translation (for example, it could say, “Translator’s note:” and then include the explanation). Other times, the original document is vague or unclear. In that case, the translator should again literally translate the words, but can include an explanatory note. Sometimes, documents contain illegible words. For them, the translator can include a bracketed statement indicating that the text is [illegible].
Third, while I think it is not required, I strongly prefer that the translated text look similar to the original (or sometime like a mirror image of the original, if it is a right-to-left language like Arabic). So bold or underlined words in the original should be bold or underlined in English. If the original text has different paragraphs, the English should follow a similar format. If some words in the original are centered, or shifted to one side or to a corner of the page, the translation should do the same.
Fourth, every word of the document should be translated. For documents where that is not possible (like a newspaper where you are only interested in using one article on the page), the translator should clearly indicate what portions of the document are being translated. In this case, I prefer to highlight the original document to make clear which parts are being translated. Also, for news articles, it is important to include (in the original language and in English), the name of the newspaper, the date, the title of the article, and the author, if any. Certain documents contain a lot of unnecessary boilerplate verbiage (I’m thinking of you, Salvadoran birth certificates), and so a summary translation might be more appropriate. If you use a summary translation, you need to clearly indicate that it is a summary, not a literal translation. Whether all Judges and Asylum Officers will accept summary translations, I do not know, but we use them now and again, and we have not had any problems.
Finally, countries sometimes use different calendars and even different clocks. In this situation, I think the best practice is to translate the date or time literally, and then include an explanatory note (for example, in the Jewish calendar, today is the second day of the month of Elul in the year 5777, and so if a Hebrew document contained that date, the English translation would look like this: “2 Elul 5777 [August 24, 2017]”). Some translators include only the date in our system (and not “2 Elul 5777”), and I have never had a Judge or Asylum Officer reject that, but I still think the better practice is the literal translation + explanatory note.
A related issue is letters from people who do not speak English, including the asylum applicants themselves. If a person does not speak English, but submits an English letter or affidavit, there must be a “certificate of interpretation stating that the affidavit or declaration has been read to the person in a language that the person understands and that he or she understood it before signing.” See Immigration Court Practice Manual, p. 48. “The certificate must also state that the interpreter is competent to translate the language of the document, and that the interpretation was true and accurate to the best of the interpreter’s abilities.” Id.
Lastly, many asylum seekers speak English and can translate documents themselves. This is fine. However, a person should not sign a certificate of translation for her own case. So if you translate your own documents, find a friend who speaks both languages to review the documents and sign the certificate of translation.
Accurate translations can enhance credibility and help you win your case. So either find (and pay) a competent translator or – if you do it yourself or use a friend – take the time to ensure that the translations are accurate and complete. Otherwise, documents that might help your case could end up doing more harm than good.
Without interpreters, the asylum system could not function.
For interviews at the asylum office, applicants must provide their own interpreter, either a friend, a volunteer, or a paid professional. To ensure that the interpretation is accurate (and that there is no funny business going on in the translation), USCIS requires that a professional interpreter monitors the interview by phone. Who are these mysterious monitors?
One is Maria McFadden, interpreter extraordinaire, who works in the Washington, DC area and beyond. Here are her thoughts on telephonic interpretation:
One of the most challenging tasks for an interpreter is telephonic interpretation. While court interpreters aspire to be unobtrusive in order to allow each party to have their say, being able to observe or signal the speakers can make communication flow much more easily.
When using a telephonic interpreter, be sure to speak loudly into the phone.
During interviews at the asylum office, telephonic interpreters are rarely used to interpret the actual proceedings; rather, they serve as monitors. The role of these monitor interpreters is to ensure the quality and accuracy of the on-site interpreter. Oftentimes, the person brought to the interview to serve as an interpreter is not a professional. While such a person might be aware of and adhere to the interpreter code of ethics, their ability to interpret is sometimes not sufficient to ensure an accurate translation. This could damage the credibility of the asylum applicant and deprive her of the chance to tell her story.
At times, the monitor might “challenge” the interpretation. This could cause the on-site interpreter to become flustered and become defensive. If he/she feels that their interpretation is correct, they should state so to the officer and not directly to the monitor. Each interpreter has the right to stand by their interpretation and it is up to the officer to settle the matter.
Being a monitor is not an easy task and most interpreter’s take the job seriously. If you feel that the monitor is being unnecessarily disruptive and combative, this issue should be addressed to the asylum officer. There is no need to talk to the monitor interpreter.
If you have a telephonic interpreter, please keep the following points in mind:
1. Keep your voice loud and clear. While this is important when working with an on-site interpreters as well, it is even more important over the phone. 2. Don’t shuffle papers as you speak; you might as well stop talking because the interpreter will not be able to hear you. 3. Try not to talk over other people. The interpreter can only translate for one person at a time. Over the phone, it will be impossible for the interpreter to understand what is being said if people talk over each other. This could result in a statement by the applicant going unheard by the asylum officer–with potentially disastrous consequences. 4. Wait for the interpreter to finish interpreting before making another statement or asking a question. 5.If you don’t hear or can’t understand the interpreter, speak up!
By keeping this short list of pointers in mind, the process will go more smoothly for all involved.
This blog entry is by ace reporter Maria Raquel McFadden. Ms. McFadden is also a freelance business, legal, and immigration interpreter with 10 years experience. She has interpreted in various forums including courts, immigration interviews, depositions, and business meetings. Ms. McFadden is registered with the State of Maryland and can be reached at: Office: 202-709-3602 or Cell: 202-360-2736; mcfadden.maria@gmail.com.
Asylum seekers are often fraught with misgivings and anxiety about providing information that they feel might make them victims of reprisals should their claim be denied. It is important that besides being informed of attorney-client confidentiality, asylum seekers be made aware that the entirety of the asylum process is protected by confidentiality laws and regulations. Interpreters are not only bound by these rules but also by their cannon of ethics and standards, which also requires confidentiality.
Like many other professionals, interpreters must follow certain standards of practice while on the job. Despite the fact that the number and order of cannons in the interpreters’ “Code of Ethics” can vary a bit among accrediting bodies and hiring agencies, a perennial tenet is the one of confidentiality.
Though once in a while a very special and extraordinary circumstance might occur that can override the principle of confidentiality (such being told directly the whereabouts of a currently kidnapped victim by a non-English or limited English speaker ), all must bear in mind that this cannon is one of the foremost importance.
Interpreters often have access to protected, restricted, private and/or sensitive information. The oath taken by professional interpreters to adhere to confidentiality assures asylum seekers and all connected to the case (including witnesses) that the facts and circumstances they share with the private bar attorneys, immigration judge or immigration officers, and other U.S. government personnel will not be divulged by the interpreter to an outside party.
No matter whether the process is an asylum hearing, a credible fear or reasonable fear determination hearing, an interpreter may not share any information he/she has learned (whether orally or in writing) before, during or after the proceeding.
From time to time, for educational purposes, interpreters do and should share language issues that arise. However, it is important they never share any identifying information which can include the name of the asylum seekers, the judge, officer, or representing attorney.
Frequently during the process (at interviews at the asylum office or during attorney-client meetings for example), non-professional “interpreters” are used. Attorneys and asylum officers should remind those interpreters of their duties in respect to confidentiality.
When an asylum seeker understands the importance that the court, USCIS, and attorneys place on confidentiality, asylum seekers can be reassured and thus feel more comfortable disclosing all the details of their case, making the process work better for all involved.
Though once in a while a very special and extraordinary circumstance might occur that can override the principle of confidentiality (such being told directly the whereabouts of a currently kidnapped victim by a non-English or limited English speaker ), all must bear in mind that this cannon is one of the foremost importance.