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

The interpreter was located in the courtroom or translated by phone (phone
translation is the rule in the case of languages other than Spanish). In the few hearings
we observed with non-Spanish interpreters, we saw serious problems. One observer
reported that four Mandarin-speaking immigrants had a group hearing, and that it was
“chaotic.” On five occasions, observers reported that the court seemed reluctant to use an
interpreter, even when it appeared that the immigrant could not understand everything
that was said in the courtroom. One observer described the case of an Arabic-speaking
immigrant: “The immigrant spoke English, but imperfectly. He told long, somewhat
jumbled stories. His lawyer requested an interpreter and the judge deemed it
unnecessary.” In other cases, observers made comments like the following: “There was
no interpreter and I got no sense that the immigrants understood what was going on.”
A few attorneys discussed their frustration with the interpretation procedures.
Some attorneys complained about the distance between the interpreter and the immigrant.
Two attorneys mentioned that interpretation over the phone was often difficult or
“messy,” and others suggested having the interpreter at Broadview. However, as one
attorney pointed out, most attorneys have limited foreign language abilities, and they are
often not able to evaluate the effectiveness of any interpretation. We suggest that the
immigrants themselves, and possibly the interpreters, would be the best sources for more
information about how videoconferencing affects courtroom interpretation.
The Presentation of Evidence and Testimony
Problems concerning the presentation of evidence and testimony were relatively
common in our observed hearings – about one in six immigrants experienced some type
44