Opinion ID: 1238596
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Issues on Remand Quality of Translation

Text: The Board's affirmance rested primarily on the adverse credibility determination that we have just discussed and found wanting. Nevertheless, the IJ enumerated some additional grounds for disbelieving Issiaka's testimony we must determine if the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the denial of relief. However, it is difficult for us to review the remainder of the record because of the poor quality of the translation and transcription. The portion of the transcript reproduced above demonstrates some of the less serious difficulties the judge, translator and petitioner were having communicating with each other. The difficulties are better illustrated by the following exchange: JUDGE: All right, and Jabadi Kaulfa knew Colonel Bata Yoko (phonetic sp.)? ISSIAKA: Huh? JUDGE: A colonel drove you to Jabadi's house, is that correct? Can you understand the interpreter? GOVERNMENT COUNSEL [4] : I think that question was misstated. JUDGE: Yeah, and I don't even speak French. INTERPRETER: (To Judge) Yes. Can you repeat that question. JUDGE: Yes. JUDGE: (To Issiaka) You stated in your application that a Colonel Bata Yoko drove you to San Pedro? GOVERNMENT COUNSEL: Judge, may I clarify for the interpreter? JUDGE: Yes. ISSIAKA: Yes. JUDGE: Okay, so did Jabadi see the colonel when he dropped you off? ISSIAKA: Yes. JUDGE: Okay. And why didn't you put in your application anything about you were treated by a doctor for your wounds? GOVERNMENT COUNSEL: That question needs to be clarified. ISSIAKA: I did not understand that question. JUDGE: Okay. How well are you understanding our interpreter? ISSIAKA: I don't have any problems. JUDGE: (To Interpreter) Okay, how well do you understand him? INTERPRETER: I don't have any problem either. JUDGE: Okay. But he keeps not understanding me but I don't know. If you're translating my English okay I don't understand why he doesn't, you know, understand my question. I'm talking to you. Is French your first language? INTERPRETER: Yes. JUDGE: What country are you from? INTERPRETER: Rwanda. The only problem is accent, no offense, but we do understand each other. JUDGE: (To Counsel for Issiaka) Okay, you don't have any objections to our interpreter here? COUNSEL FOR ISSIAKA: For the time being, no. App. 95-97. Issiaka's attorney failed to object to the problems with translation during the hearing, and also failed to raise any issue about the quality and accuracy of the translation before the Board. Nevertheless, it is readily apparent from reading the transcript that there were translation problems somewhere between Issiaka, the translator and the questioner. For example, more often than not, Issiaka's answers were not responsive to the question asked as it appears in the transcript. Although this could be evidence of evasiveness, given the number of times that Issiaka answered I don't understand, the IJ should have been alerted to the very real possibility of a communication problem between Issiaka and the translator. [5] Here, the IJ was clearly aware of this problem and elected to continue with the hearing anyway. Because of the apparent problems with translation and transcription we are reluctant to rule on the IJ's remaining justifications for doubting Issiaka's credibility. The IJ concluded that Issiaka failed to reliably and reasonably prove his identity or provide an adequate explanation of how he obtained copies of his family's identification cards or why he could not produce the originals. The IJ was also concerned at Issiaka's failure to provide written corroboration of his story from the friend he stayed with after fleeing Abidjan. [6] Yet, we cannot conclude that these findings are adequately supported by substantial evidence because the written record is too muddled to allow intelligent review. [7] The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that even where no due process violation has been raised, faulty or unreliable translations can undermine the evidence on which an adverse credibility finding is based. He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593, 598 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Balasubramanrim v. INS, 143 F.3d 157, 162-64 (3d Cir.1998)). We agree, and we think this is such a case. See also Kaita v. Att'y Gen., 522 F.3d 288 (3d Cir.2008) (vacating adverse credibility determination where record showed obvious translation problems and portions of the record were essentially unintelligible). On remand, we strongly encourage the government to ensure that an interpreter who is familiar with Issiaka's native language, dialect of French and any accent. We are all sufficiently familiar with how strong accents can interfere with understanding one's own language. We do not know if that is what happened here, but it is clear that the record does not lend itself to the kind of review to which both Issiaka and the government deserve.