Picture this: After years of waiting for your immigration hearing, you finally step into the courtroom. You take your seat, ready to share your story—and then realize you cannot understand anything that is happening. The interpreter’s voice is muffled, and the words sound foreign. You ask for help, but the interpreter does not catch what you are saying. You are powerless to communicate your own story.
This is becoming the reality for many in the US immigration system. The 1978 Federal Court Interpreters Act, which guarantees access to interpreters for migrants with Limited English Proficiency (LEP), has been increasingly compromised. In 2018, approximately 89 percent of immigration court hearings fell under the act. Given how expensive and difficult finding live interpreters has become, the Department of Justice’s Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) is now favoring third-party telephonic interpretation services. But to ensure a baseline of justice that protects immigrants’ fundamental right to participate fully in their judicial proceedings, government agencies must reverse course and limit their growing reliance on telephonic interpreters, which not only compromises the quality of communication but also reduces efficiency in the immigration system.
In 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ) ordered immigration judges to use more translators who work over the phone for languages other than Spanish. Unfortunately, telephonic interpretation is often of significantly lower quality than in-person interpretation. Telephonic interpretation slows down proceedings due to lags in communication and an inability to convey facial expressions and body language—critical elements when immigrants are sharing traumatic stories. When combined with poor call quality or frequent technical difficulties, phrases become lost in translation. Because court transcribers only write down what the interpreter translates, erroneous statements frequently enter the legal record. A mistranslation or a drop in the call could misconstrue an entire testimony in a proceeding in which credibility is critical.
The DOJ justified its shift toward telephonic interpretation by citing budgetary constraints, but a fairer accounting of the facts reveals budgetary mismanagement. In 2015, for instance, a corporation named SOS International (SOSi) won the bidding for EOIR interpretation services, replacing Lionbridge Global Solutions. Since then, EOIR has signed multiple contracts with SOSi totaling up to $400 million. SOSi slashed pay rates nearly in half, forced interpreters to travel nationwide with little notice, assigned erratic hours, and often required interpreters to work without breaks—a significant problem, considering that interpreters are known to perform badly without sufficient rest. A court even found that SOSi illegally retaliated against worker organizations that protested the changes. These poor labor practices caused many interpreters to refuse to work in immigration courts after the 2015 contract, leading to today’s critical shortage. Coupled with immigration courts’ low certification standards for interpreters compared to other federal courts, SOSi’s contract has led to a marked decline in interpretation quality.
It seems logical to argue that already overwhelmed immigration courts, burdened by millions of cases, would fare even worse if the EOIR moved away from regular use of telephonic interpretation. However, cutting corners on interpretation not only corrupts justice and impartiality but actually contributes to delays. Miscommunications, poor interpretations, and difficulties securing telephonic interpreters only add to the backlog. A rushed hearing with inadequate interpretation can backfire, resulting in appeals, remands, and the need for additional hearings, dragging cases out for years. Improving interpretation is not an obstacle to efficiency but rather a vital reform to ensure fair and timely adjudication.
Potential reforms range from simple logistical improvements to systemic changes that lighten the load on interpreters. Telephonic interpretation should be reserved for situations where no alternative exists, such as cases involving rare indigenous languages. In these instances, audio and visual quality must be drastically improved with more modern systems that include multiple cameras and microphones, ensuring that the interpreter can see and hear proceedings clearly.
The EOIR should also reduce its dependence on contract interpreters and instead hire full-time staff interpreters to maintain higher standards and improve working conditions. Alongside staffing changes, the EOIR should implement a strategy of team interpreting, whereby two or more interpreters work together. This system is recommended by organizations like the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators to prevent fatigue and improve interpretation accuracy.
The consequences of a systemic reliance on telephonic interpretation are not merely technical—they are fundamentally unjust and deeply felt by immigrants. Poor interpretation can leave an individual unable to effectively present their case. In a system in which your story is your lifeline, migrants find their futures hanging in the balance because of a simple communication error—and may never know what went wrong. However, the problems inherent in the immigration system extend beyond the tendency to diminish an individual immigrant’s right to a fair trial. These egregious miscarriages of justice threaten the integrity of immigration court as an institution.