From the Left



The Government Denies People Access to Asylum Because of Language Barriers

The ACLU on

Every year, thousands of asylum seekers from diverse corners of the world seek refuge in the United States. Many -- such as Indigenous people from Latin America and Africa -- are fleeing persecution based on the languages they speak and their cultural, ethnic and racial backgrounds. Their ability to access the asylum system has life-or-death consequences. Yet our government cuts off access to asylum and other fundamental rights based on language barriers alone.

The federal government has a responsibility to ensure people with limited English proficiency (LEP) can reasonably access its services. Failure to do so discriminates by excluding LEP people from federal programs. This infringes on LEP individuals' constitutional due process and equal protection rights, as well as well-established language rights enshrined in federal law. Nevertheless, the government routinely denies asylum seekers critical language access throughout the asylum process.

Starting even outside the United States, anyone seeking asylum at the border generally must use the CBPOne app to obtain an elusive appointment. Beyond well-documented problems with accessibility, appointment shortages, racist facial recognition bugs and other technical issues, the app is only available in English, Spanish and Haitian Creole, with limited Russian and Portuguese features. Thousands of asylum seekers who speak other languages are left out, with dangerous consequences for those stranded in waiting.

Language access problems continue once LEP individuals finally enter the U.S. for asylum screening. The government admits that it struggles to provide interpreters for certain languages, especially rare or Indigenous languages, during screening interviews. So asylum seekers often feel pressured to undergo interviews -- which determine whether they can pursue an asylum claim -- in a more common language, even if they don't speak it proficiently enough to communicate sensitive details of their claim.

Those who finally get an opportunity to apply for asylum must complete their application -- a complicated legal document -- entirely in English. For LEP asylum seekers in government detention facilities without translation or interpretation services, that's impossible. Appallingly, immigration judges have ordered LEP asylum seekers to be returned to the countries they fled, simply because they could not fill out the application in English, even when language services weren't available. Moreover, immigration courts can't find adequate interpreters for certain languages, leading to unnecessary and prolonged detention. Often, people are faced with an impossible choice: proceed in languages they don't fully understand (and risk being denied protection) or give up. Effectively, the government blocks LEP people from presenting their asylum claims because of the language they speak -- not because they lack a meritorious claim.

Affirmative asylum interviews are another glaring example of the government's discrimination against LEP asylum seekers. These interviews are a critical step: They are the only opportunity for someone to sit down with an asylum officer and explain their fear of persecution outside of the removal process. But for decades, the government has required applicants to provide their own interpreters. This puts a substantial logistical and financial burden on LEP asylum seekers, many of whom have limited financial means, and imposes an even greater burden on those who speak rare languages with only a handful of interpreters available across the country. LEP applicants who can't find interpreters face delays or, worse, referral to removal proceedings.


Financial constraints force many applicants to use friends or family members to interpret. Serious ethical and practical concerns follow. Applicants may hesitate to share the full scope of their trauma or asylum claim with loved ones; untrained interpreters may lack an understanding of professional norms of confidentiality and conduct for interpretation or may struggle to accurately translate technical legal terminology. Inaccurate interpretation prevents applicants from fully presenting their claims and can cause erroneous credibility findings.

The interpreter requirement is also inefficient and illogical. The government already contracts professional interpreters who monitor the quality of applicant-provided interpreters during interviews. That's right: The government already pays for interpreters to participate in these interviews. It has stated on multiple occasions that these contract monitors can provide more efficient interpretation at no additional cost. But asylum officers regularly reschedule interviews when applicants fail to bring an interpreter, even though the government's interpreter is already present.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government temporarily permitted applicants to use contract monitors as interpreters during asylum interviews. But the government recently and abruptly ended this policy without explanation, once again requiring applicants to bring their own interpreters. The government now faces an unprecedented backlog of affirmative asylum cases with an outdated, inefficient and discriminatory interpreter rule.

The ACLU is fighting back. Along with 52 organizations from across the country, we are petitioning the government to abandon its illogical and discriminatory rule requiring applicants to bring their own interpreters. Our ask is simple and commonsense: Change the regulation and permit asylum applicants to use the government-funded interpreters already present during asylum interviews at the applicant's discretion. This will ensure that LEP asylum seekers have a meaningful opportunity to present their asylum claims and make one small but significant step toward bridging the gaps in language access in our asylum system.

My Khanh Ngo is a staff attorney at the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. Noelle Smith is a Skadden fellow at the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. For more than 100 years, the ACLU has worked in courts, legislatures and communities to protect the constitutional rights of all people. With a nationwide network of offices and millions of members and supporters, the ACLU takes on the toughest civil liberties fights in pursuit of liberty and justice for all. To find out more about the ACLU and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at

Copyright 2024 Creators Syndicate Inc.




Bill Day Peter Kuper Mike Luckovich Walt Handelsman Pedro X. Molina Kirk Walters