8 months in immigration court

This past March I began subcontracting through SOS International (SOSi) for the Department of Justice (more specifically, for EOIR, Executive Office for Immigration Review) to interpret in federal immigration courts. Since March, my work load has shifted to being comprised 60-70% of immigration cases. There are a plethora of topics I could write about within immigration, and I’m sure I’ll have more blog posts down the line. Right now, I’d like to simply give an overview mostly for any interpreters interested in pursuing the immigration route, so you can know what you might expect in this arena.

In this entry, I’ll cover how I got started with immigration, what a typical week looks like for me in court, and conclude with some pros and cons I see from an interpreter perspective.

Getting Started

In summary, the process to qualify to interpret in immigration court is this: the contractor SOSi issued me a short (20-30 minute) interpreting diagnostic to determine my eligibility for a preparation course. Once I passed the diagnostic, I moved on to an online lecture-based prep course catered by the Southern California School of Interpreting (SCSI with Néstor Wagner). SOSi and SCSI claimed the prep course should take two weeks. It would have taken that amount of time if I had given up my day job. Since I wanted to handle the material thoroughly, it took me closer to a month. 

At the end of the prep course, there was a lengthier recorded exam that includes consecutive, simultaneous (up to 160 wpm), and two short sight translations. As a state-certified court interpreter, I found the material manageable, and passed with an average score of 88% between all sections.

Once I passed the exam, I was required to attend a day-long orientation at an immigration court, in which I observed both a master calendar and an individual merits hearing (more on this later). After the orientation, I was scheduled for a first-time interpretation (FTI), which is always an individual merits. All hearings are recorded at all times, so after my FTI, SOSi pulled the recording and graded my interpretation. I had to wait two and a half weeks for the results, but am happy to report the hearing was manageable and I scored 94%.

Typical Week

Because there is no immigration courthouse or facility in my city, all my work for the DOJ is through travel. Since March I have worked in Los Angeles, Phoenix, Dallas, Seattle, Houston, Harlingen, New Orleans, Washington DC, San Diego, San Francisco, and at various locations in Central Louisiana.

SOSi books flights, hotel, and rental vehicle if necessary. Hearings typically begin at 8:00 or 8:30, and there are two main types: master calendar (MC) hearings and individual merits (IM) hearings. MCs are essentially mini status conferences, in which the respondent can ask for more time to find a lawyer, apply for asylum pro se, and have an IM set, i.a. IMs are immigration trials, where the respondent presents his/her case for relief (asylum, withholding of removal, protection against torture etc.). Almost all immigration courtrooms have an interpreter booth next to the judge, where I interpret with a headset, while the respondent sits about 20 feet away at a table with earphones.

During IMs, I can expect to encounter a pretty wide range of topics, terminology, accents, and colloquialisms. Respondents tend to be from Mexico, Central America, and Cuba, but I also get the occasional Colombian, Ecuadorian, or Venezuelan. Respondent testimony during an IM inevitably revolves around being a victim of crime, gang violence, political persecution etc. Additionally, there is a type of relief called cancellation of removal, where the respondent testifies about the hardship qualifying relative would suffer if the respondent were removed the from the country.

During travel days, I’ll typically be in the courtroom anywhere from 4-9 hours depending on the types of hearing that day. There is no team interpretation.

Pros and Cons
The biggest pro is without a doubt the amount of work available through immigration. If I wanted to, I could fill up 100% of my schedule by traveling for the DOJ. The second pro for me is likely how interesting it is to be so up close with the immigration system. Hearing and interpreting the migrant stories in the courtroom is utterly fascinating, and the linguist nerd in me loves the variety of accents and vocabulary I get to work with every day. Sometimes it can be rough emotionally, but I consider it an honor to represent the respondents faithfully in court.

As for the cons, unfortunately the list is lengthy. While there are some great folks at SOSi who have been a joy to work with and even befriend (you know who you are), as an entity, SOSi is fairly unscrupulous when it comes to its interpreters, and has demonstrated to many over the years that really it is mostly interested in getting as cheap of labor as possible for the DOJ, with zero regard to ethics, conditions, or quality of services.

Pay through SOSi is less than any other court entity I’ve worked with. Travel stipends are less than generous. There is zero team interpreting, which is a health and ethics risk of mammoth proportions. I’ll save the horror stories for another time, but I’ll say that for the professional season I’m currently in, I see immigration courts has a useful way to get a lot of experience in a short amount of time.

Thank you for stopping by my blog and please don’t hesitate to leave any questions or comments below!