Justice is supposed to be blind, but in the American immigration system, it is often also deaf. A growing legal challenge now alleges that Somali immigrants are being systematically stripped of their right to a fair hearing because of a fundamental breakdown in language access. This isn't a minor administrative glitch. It is a structural failure that turns the asylum process into a high-stakes game of telephone where the prize is safety and the penalty is often a return to a war zone.
When a Somali national stands before an immigration judge, they are frequently met with a "VRI" or Video Remote Interpreting system. On the other side of a grainy screen, an interpreter may struggle with a specific regional dialect or simply fail to capture the nuances of a witness's trauma. According to recent filings, these technical and human failures have effectively barred thousands from presenting their cases in a meaningful way.
The Fiction of the Competent Interpreter
The Department of Justice maintains a list of approved translation services, yet the reality on the ground tells a different story. In many immigration courts, the rush to clear massive backlogs has led to a "quantity over quality" approach. Interpreters are often hired through third-party contractors who prioritize low bids over linguistic precision.
For a Somali refugee, the difference between the word for "forced recruitment" and "voluntary participation" can be a matter of life and death. If an interpreter lacks the specific vocabulary of a particular Somali clan or region, the official record of the hearing becomes a distorted version of the truth. These errors are then transcribed and used by judges to find "inconsistencies" in testimony. Once a judge decides an applicant is not credible based on a mistranslation, the case is essentially over. There is rarely a way to scrub the record of a mistake that the applicant didn't even know was being made.
How Technical Glitches Become Legal Precedents
It is not just about the words. It is about the hardware. The move toward remote hearings was accelerated by the pandemic, but the "temporary" measures have become the new standard. In detention centers located in rural areas, the internet connection is frequently unstable.
Audio drops out. The screen freezes. A witness pours out the most harrowing details of their life while the interpreter hears only static. Instead of pausing the proceedings to fix the connection, many judges push forward. They are under immense pressure to hit "case completion" quotas. This creates a scenario where the "hearing" is little more than a box-ticking exercise. The legal requirement for a "full and fair hearing" assumes that the person being heard is actually understood. When the technology fails, that constitutional protection vanishes.
The Specific Targeted Hardship for Somali Applicants
Somalia presents a unique challenge for the U.S. immigration system because of its complex sociopolitical structure. The country is divided by a sophisticated clan system that dictates everything from land rights to physical safety. An interpreter who understands the Somali spoken in Mogadishu might be completely lost when a client from a minority clan in the south begins to speak.
Lawyers representing these individuals report that they frequently have to interrupt hearings to correct blatant errors. However, not every immigrant has a lawyer. For those navigating the system pro se—representing themselves—there is no one to act as a linguistic watchdog. They speak, the interpreter mangles the sentiment, and the judge writes a denial. This isn't just a hurdle. It is an invisible wall.
The Credibility Trap
The most damaging aspect of this failure is the "adverse credibility finding." In asylum law, your word is often your only evidence. Most people fleeing a civil war do not stop to gather notarized documents. If an interpreter misses a date or confuses a location, the judge views it as a lie.
Consider a hypothetical example where an applicant says they were attacked in a "maqaayad" (cafe), but the interpreter translates it as a "dukan" (shop). When the applicant later refers to the cafe, the judge sees a discrepancy. To the bench, this looks like a fabricated story. In reality, it was a failure of the bridge between two languages. Once that mark is on a file, it follows the person through every appeal, making it nearly impossible to ever win their freedom.
A System Designed for Efficiency Over Equity
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has long struggled with its identity. Is it a court of law or an arm of law enforcement? Under current administrative pressures, it functions more like an assembly line. The use of telephonic and video interpreting is a cost-saving measure, but the cost is being paid by the most vulnerable participants.
Critics of the current lawsuit argue that the system is doing the best it can with limited resources. They point to the sheer volume of cases and the difficulty of finding qualified Somali speakers who are also trained in legal terminology. But "doing your best" is not the legal standard for due process. If the government cannot provide a way for a person to understand the charges against them or the questions being asked, it should not be allowed to deport them.
The Missing Human Element
A hearing is more than just words. It involves body language, tone, and the ability to build a rapport with the person who holds your fate in their hands. In a cramped room in a detention center, staring at a flickering monitor, that human connection is severed. Somali culture relies heavily on oral tradition and direct communication. Forcing that experience through a low-bandwidth video link strips the testimony of its emotional weight.
Judges often complain that Somali witnesses are "evasive" or "unresponsive." What they fail to realize is that the witness is often reacting to a confusing, delayed, or poorly translated question. The frustration on the judge's face is visible on the screen, which only increases the witness’s anxiety, leading to more mistakes. It is a self-perpetuating cycle of failure.
The Role of Third-Party Contractors
The privatization of interpretation services has introduced a profit motive into a fundamental government function. These companies often pay their linguists a fraction of what the government pays the firm. This leads to high turnover and a reliance on less-experienced interpreters. In some cases, the person on the phone isn't even a certified legal interpreter; they are simply someone who claims to speak the language.
Documents from the ongoing litigation suggest that there is almost no oversight of these contractors. There is no regular auditing of the quality of the translations. The only time a problem is flagged is if a lawyer complains, but as previously noted, many Somali immigrants are fighting these cases alone. Without a paper trail of complaints, the contractors continue to receive millions of dollars in taxpayer money while providing a service that actively undermines the rule of law.
Beyond the Language Gap
While the focus is often on the words themselves, there is a deeper issue of cultural competency. The American legal system is adversarial. It expects clear, linear narratives with specific dates and times. Many Somali applicants come from a background where time is measured by seasons or significant events, not by a Gregorian calendar.
A skilled interpreter can bridge that gap by explaining the context to the judge. A mediocre interpreter, or one working through a bad phone line, will simply translate the "wrong" date, leading to another denial. The system is essentially punishing people for not being Westernized before they even arrive.
The High Stakes of Silence
If these lawsuits succeed, they could force a massive overhaul of how the EOIR handles language access. It would require more in-person interpreters, better technology, and a rigorous certification process that includes dialect-specific testing.
Until then, the Somali community remains in a state of legal limbo. People who have a legitimate fear of persecution are being sent back because the system failed to hear them correctly. It is a quiet crisis, happening in windowless rooms and over glitchy internet connections, far from the public eye.
The integrity of the immigration system relies on the belief that everyone gets their day in court. But if you can't understand what is happening on that day, and the court can't understand you, then that day is a sham. The focus must shift from how many cases can be closed to how many cases can be heard correctly. Demand a full audit of the VRI systems and the immediate implementation of mandatory dialect-specific testing for all government-contracted Somali interpreters.
