Videoconferencing in Removal Hearings: A Case Study of the ...

Table 4.2: Use of Interpreter and Frequency of Problems 60
Hearings with no
interpreter
(% of row total)
Hearings with
interpreter
(% of row total)
Total
(% of row total)
Problems
Occurred
26
(33.8%)
23
(69.7%)
49
(44.5%)
No Problems
Occurred
42
51
(66.2%)
10
(30.3%)
61
(55.5%)
Total
77
(100%)
33
(100%)
110
(100%)
Immigrants who used interpreters were statistically more likely to have
difficulties with videoconferencing. As shown above, 70% experienced problems, while
only 33% of immigrants without interpreters had any trouble. The higher frequency of
problems was largely due to a higher rate of interpretation difficulties, but interpreter-
dependent immigrants also tended to experience more technical problems, access to
counsel issues, and testimonial and evidentiary problems than immigrants who did not
use interpreters. Immigrants who depended on interpreters had a statistically higher rate
of experiencing evidentiary-testimonial complications, such as not having access to
charging documents.
An immigrant who relied on an interpreter had a statistically higher chance of
removal as well. Almost one-half of those using interpreters received removal orders
during their videoconference hearing, as opposed to 23% for English-speaking
immigrants. 61 This is a difficult trend to unravel – we did not have enough data to make
60
Cited problems included technical failures, access to counsel, the presentation of evidence, and
interpretation.
61 18 (or 23.4%) out of 77 English-speaking immigrants received removal orders, while 16 (or 48.5%) of
33 non-English speakers received removal orders.