Interpretation in Asylum Hearings

• Banaz Kamil
• 10 September 2024
• Posted in: Healthcare, Education

Interpretation in Asylum Hearings

Asylum seekers who seek asylum in the UK rarely speak English as their first language (Gill & Others, 2016). Difficulties with language comprehension can be a significant barrier to justice for asylum seekers and procedural fairness can be adversely affected in cases where the asylum seeker is not able to understand processes and communicate with decision makers (Bolmmaert, 2009). The role of the interpreter in the asylum process is significant in facilitating communication between all actors (Barksy 1993).

Despite the vital role they play, interpreters are often overlooked in studies focusing on asylum procedures, highlighting a longstanding conception of their invisibility (Angelelli, 2002; Downie, 2017).

My research seeks to improve access to justice in the First-tier Immigration and Asylum Tribunals for users who require an interpreter, by collecting data from tribunal observations and conducting interviews with tribunal users, interpreters and legal representatives.

Interpreting in asylum hearings:

Over the past 30 years, there has been an increasing body of literature which has underscored the crucial importance of the roles and ethical responsibilities of interpreters within the asylum system which consistently shows that the asylum interpreters do not often fulfil the expectations of their prescribed roles as set out by ethical codes and scholarly research (Amato & Galla, 2024). This is not to be confused with interpreters necessarily doing a bad job; rather, a wide range of issues contributes to these shortcomings due to the complexity of the job of interpreting in legal settings (Veigo, 2024). Factors such as varying levels of proficiency in rare languages, inadequate training, high emotional stress, unclear guidelines, and insufficient support further complicates the interpreter’s ability to meet expectations (Barsky, 2012).

Credibility:

Credibility is often the key factor in determining whether an applicant is granted or denied asylum (Bohmer and Shuman 2018). Most literature on credibility in the asylum context agree that credibility in short is the core of the asylum process (Blake, 2001). The credibility assessment involves checking for three main things: internal consistency, external consistency (congruence with known facts), and plausibility (Weston 1998). Whilst Home Office guidance may suggest that an applicant simply needs to tell their story and meet the criteria outlined by the UK government, the reality is often far more complex (Thomas, 2006). If the person cannot convince the decision-maker that their claim is properly to be regarded as credible, then they are less likely to be recognised as a refugee. It is often that ‘credible’ asylum-seekers are expected to tell ‘logical, linear and truthful stories’ (Cohen, 2001).

My preliminary research findings have identified several challenges that impact the effectiveness of interpreting in asylum hearings:

Interpreting standards:

• McKelvey (2020), draws attention to the problems with inadequately trained interpreters in the Scottish public Services.
• First-tier tribunal interpreters often lack familiarity with legal terminology and concepts.
• The complexity of asylum cases necessitates interpreters with a deep understanding of both legal and linguistic nuances to ensure a consistent account throughout.

Trust issues with interpreters:

• Asylum seekers often fear interpreters are colluding with authorities or sharing information, while officials worry that interpreters might side with asylum seekers due to their shared nationality. This can cause an asylum seeker to be reluctant to disclose certain information, potentially resulting in inconsistencies in their account and adversely affecting the appellant’s credibility. (Kälin 1986; Barsky 1993).

Linguistic & cultural:

• Words, notions, and concepts often carry different meanings across cultures, leading to misunderstandings.
• Cultural relativity affects comprehension and perception, contributing to communication challenges.
• Cross-cultural misunderstandings can result in unintentional bias in interpreting statements and concepts (Goodman, 1978).