Key Takeaways
- Spanish interpretation is essential in immigration courts, as most respondents are Limited English Proficient (LEP) and require language access under federal law.
- Remote interpretation systems expand nationwide access to interpreters and help courts manage a backlog of over 3 million cases.
- Reliance on SOSi, a private contractor of the Executive Office for Immigration Review since 2015, has created problems, including lower interpreter qualifications, labor disputes, and risks of lower interpretation quality.
Immigration Court’s Relationship to the Spanish Language
In 2024, over 44.87 million people in the United States, 1 in 7 people, spoke Spanish regularly at home. Spanish is the second-most spoken language in the country. Spanish is at the forefront of the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) language-accessible materials in courts. The EOIR is an agency within the Department of Justice, operating 642 courtrooms and supervising 735 immigration judges as of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024. In FY 2024, 704,949 immigration cases were completed. However, the courts, on average, received 148,663 new cases per month, which amounted to the backlog (i.e. the amount of pending cases) of about 3.6 million active cases at the end of FY 2024.
This growing backlog, alongside the COVID-19 pandemic, has led to the introduction of virtual court hearings. The remote option allows for all the same mechanics, such as face-to-face live proceedings and accessibility for all parties, including translators, attorneys, and respondents. This option also includes Spanish interpretation. Spanish is the dominant language spoken in immigration proceedings, making up nearly 70 percent of all languages spoken by respondents. Over 85 percent are Limited English Proficient (LEP), requiring interpreters for services such as court hearings under Executive Order 13166 and the Court Interpreters Act of 1978.
In 2000, E.O. 13166 marked progression towards inclusive interpretation policies by requiring federal agencies and recipients of federal funds to provide meaningful access for LEP individuals. By 2018, more than 89 percent of immigration hearings across the United States fell under the Court Interpreters Act, marking the law’s effectiveness.
How Does EOIR’s Remote Spanish Interpretation Function?
The EOIR operates a Language Services Unit (LSU) within the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ), responsible for managing all interpreter services. The agency is small, with 80 staff members in interpreter positions, most of which specialize in Spanish and Mandarin. The EOIR has contracted SOS International, LLC (SOSi) since 2015 for additional support; SOSi received renewed $400 million contracts in 2020 for its interpretative services. SOSi supports more than 700 immigration judges in 120 hearing locations, including remotely. Their services represent over 270 languages and dialects, and process over 15,000 work orders per month. Since 2016, they have interpreted for more than 750,000 immigration cases.
Three interpretation modalities are used:
- in-person;
- over the phone interpretation or telephonic; and
- video remote interpreting on platforms such as Webex.
Virtual Benefits: Geographical Scope & Language Accessibility
The EOIR’s efforts to phase in remote hearings have enabled respondents in all 50 states, D.C., and the U.S. territories to access Spanish interpreters without requiring in-person presence. This accessibility has also allowed immigration judges in more remote locations to utilize the Webex platform to increase judicial bandwidth and reduce case lengths. With more judges and interpreters, the backlog of active cases can be mitigated more efficiently.
SOSi’s extensive language scope allows interpretation to be delivered more efficiently than the LSU can provide on its own, enabling dozens of languages and Spanish dialects to be brought to a hearing. Unlike courthouses, which largely limit in-house translators to widely spoken languages such as Spanish, Mandarin, or Arabic, online interpretation expands access to hundreds of languages. Telephone access to a global interpreter network accommodates for the traditional lack of diverse interpreters in immigration courts. In addition to scope, the EOIR LSU quality assurance team conducts biannual reviews and provides a framework to flag interpretive errors. This ensures integrity and accuracy when dealing with a wide range of languages.
EOIR’s Challenges: Quality & Contractor-Labor Violations
The National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT) has warned the EOIR that SOSi’s contract structure does not require any previous work experience or certification for interpreters. This poses a risk of misunderstandings between judges, attorneys, and respondents. As the biggest contractor and issuer of certifications for interpreters, SOSi has impacted the majority of the EOIR’s interpreter pool.
Likewise, in 2015, SOSi replaced Lionbridge as the EOIR’s main contractor for interpretive services. Directly after the transition, SOSi reduced hourly wages from $60 to $35, reduced travel reimbursements, and introduced erratic scheduling. Approximately one-third of immigration court interpreters refused to sign the new contract due to the drastic cuts. A federal court subsequently found that SOSi had illegally retaliated against worker organizations that protested the changes, which contributed to an interpreter shortage and increased backlog. As a result, many immigration court interpreters moved to higher-paying criminal or civil courts and were replaced by less experienced or out-of-state interpreters.
Future Trajectory for Remote Court Interpretation Services
The Spanish-speaking population is projected to grow, whether it’s native or second-language speakers. Between 2012 and 2025, users learning Spanish on Babbel, a language-learning app, has increased from 26 percent of users to 60 percent. The EOIR has predicted that this growth will also affect the courts and the need for interpretative services. Advocates for remote court interpretation services frame these services as crucial for increasing access to the courts and reducing immigration case backlogs. Critics point out that the EOIR has shown minimal care in ensuring fair labor practices with SOSi and in verifying their interpreters’ qualifications. In the future, the EOIR will continue assessing new plans, contracts, and needs for interpretation services as the immigration landscape changes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Could low interpreter qualification standards affect immigration case outcomes?
Yes. Immigration hearings rely heavily on testimony, detailed narratives, and credibility. If interpreters are underqualified, translation errors can distort these necessary components of a hearing.
Could immigration courts train their own interpreters instead of relying on contractors?
Some courts already do this. For example, Spanish in-house interpreters are fairly common across immigration courts in the United States. Expanding EOIR’s internal interpreter staff may reduce third-party error and interpreter oversight.
Do other federal courts face the same interpretation challenges as immigration courts?
The Spanish interpretation problem is mostly reserved for the immigration courts, because they deal with most foreign respondents. Respondents in immigration courts are predominantly Spanish-speaking and need interpretation (about 85 percent).