A woman claiming political persecution was on the verge of deportation to her native Kenya — after her testimony at a refugee hearing was deemed incoherent and evasive — when it was revealed a Swahili translator had “butchered” what she was saying.
Last week, a Federal Court of Canada judge gave the woman another chance to state her claim — clearly, this time.
That such potentially grave consequences stem from a translator deemed “incompetent” by other language specialists, and who has been previously removed for similar problems, highlights “systemic” problems with the Immigration and Refugee Board, critics say.
Refugee law experts decry the IRB’s translation services as a “crisis” leading to injustice for legitimate refugees, delays in hearings and costly litigation.
“This is a big issue that has been going on for years and needs to be addressed,” said Raoul Boulakia, the woman’s Toronto lawyer and former president of the Refugee Lawyers’ Association.
The case involves Samirah Mohamed Neheid, 50, and her 22-year-old daughter, who claimed refugee protection based principally on fear of persecution from Ms. Neheid’s son’s work for a political opposition group in Kenya.
“The translator was clearly not interpreting competently,” said Mr. Boulakia. “Throughout the hearing he was butchering everything, completely missing what was being said. He was saying things in English that were gibberish.”
The interpreter failed to relay portions of questions and answers, provided inaccurate translations of what was said and spoke broken English and poor Swahli, court documents say.
The woman testified that her son went to political rallies and put up opposition posters, for example. The interpreter gave her answer in English: “Sometimes he come home with postage.”
The adjudicator admonished Ms. Neheid for being “evasive and at times incoherent” and expressed frustration with her perceived lack of co-operation.
When her lawyer raised the problem, the adjudicator said that because none of them spoke Swahili it could not be said errors were being made.
The woman’s daughter, who was at the hearing and speaks a little English, also voiced concern but was told to be quiet by the adjudicator.
Ms. Neheid’s refugee claim was denied and she and her daughter were ordered back to Kenya.
Two other Swahili translators, including Oswald Almasi, a certified translator who teaches Swahili at the University of Toronto and York University, listened to a recording of the hearing. Both dismissed the interpreter as incompetent in sworn statements filed in court.
“The interpreter makes mistakes about very elementary words in Swahili,” said Mr. Almasi. “I do not believe he could be competent to interpret in any hearing.”
At the original hearing, the interpreter was even told to ask Ms. Neheid about the quality of his interpretation, the record shows. Ms. Neheid said she did not believe he was translating properly. The interpreter gave her answer in English as: “I want to know, to understanding very well, what he asks this guy.”
Federal Court Justice Michael Phelan overturned the IRB’s decision, saying there were “serious erroneous translation” that “led to adverse credibility findings.”
“The board was clearly frustrated by what they heard through the interpreter. The applicant and her daughter were likewise frustrated and perplexed by the translation and the board’s reaction,” Justice Phelan ruled.
“The court finds that there was a breach of fairness by reason of unreasonable translation.”
The same interpreter had been ejected from another refugee hearing over complaints of incompetance, the Federal Court was told.
The IRB would not discuss Ms. Neheid’s case or say why a translator previously removed would still be hired. The IRB, however, said interpretation rarely goes awry.
“The IRB has in place a complaints procedure for anyone who has concerns regarding the competence or comportment of any of the IRB’s contracted interpreters to ensure ongoing high-quality interpreter services,” said spokeswoman Anna Pape.
“Complaints are rare. Cases that are returned to the IRB for a new hearing on the basis of inadequate interpretation services are exceedingly rare.”
Refugee lawyers do not share that view.
Complaints of systemic problems have been made by the Refugee Lawyers’ Association, which branded it a “crisis situation” where mistakes were “routine.”
In the 1990s, a refugee claim was delayed for years because a qualified Kusai translator could not be found. It took so long the claimant had learned English well enough to eventually proceed without a translator.
The IRB has 1,200 contracted interpreters in 267 languages and dialects. Mr. Boulakia hopes that after this case, there will be one less.
Justice Phelan also suggests a check.
“It is impossible to know from this record whether the translator is generally not sufficiently versed in the languages to be a translator. The court would expect the board to consider that matter and if the translator is found not to be qualified, the board would consider what impact that matter would have had in other cases.”
National Post
ahumphreys@nationalpost.com
LOST IN TRANSLATION
- The woman was asked why she had not claimed refugee status at the airport and she said that she had not known that was possible.
The interpreter gave her answer in English: “I didn’t do anything about it.”
- The woman testified that her son went to political rallies and put up opposition posters.
The interpreter gave her answer in English: “Sometimes he come home with postage.”
- The woman testified: “I was helping.”
The interpreter gave her answer in English: “I was helped.”
- The interpreter asked in Swahili if he was interpreting well. The woman said she did not believe he was.
The interpreter gave her answer in English: “I want to know, to understanding very well, what he asks this guy.”
- The woman was asked if she was a member of the political party. She said she was a supporter but not a member.
The interpreter said in English: “I’m not member but I was fanner.”
- The woman was asked: “You have another daughter that is not in Canada?”
The interpreter said to her in Swahili: You have another daughter “who is in Canada”?
- The woman said she was “not sure” of the answer to a question.
The interpreter gave her answer in English: “I was not thinking.”
- The woman was asked about her “son-in-law,” and the interpreter asked instead about her “grandson.” The adjudicator got annoyed with her for not answering the question.
- The woman testified: “I saw my son.”
The interpreter said in English: “She saw his son.”
- The woman testified that police had asked her about her son.
The interpreter gave her answer in English: “They just asked my son.”
- The lawyer asked what street the first house had been on. The interpreter asked her what “area” she lived in. Then the adjudicator was frustrated she did not answer with specifics.
- The woman said “to his friend’s home.”
The interpreter gave her answer in English: “With his friend.”
Source: National Post
Last week, a Federal Court of Canada judge gave the woman another chance to state her claim — clearly, this time.
That such potentially grave consequences stem from a translator deemed “incompetent” by other language specialists, and who has been previously removed for similar problems, highlights “systemic” problems with the Immigration and Refugee Board, critics say.
Refugee law experts decry the IRB’s translation services as a “crisis” leading to injustice for legitimate refugees, delays in hearings and costly litigation.
“This is a big issue that has been going on for years and needs to be addressed,” said Raoul Boulakia, the woman’s Toronto lawyer and former president of the Refugee Lawyers’ Association.
The case involves Samirah Mohamed Neheid, 50, and her 22-year-old daughter, who claimed refugee protection based principally on fear of persecution from Ms. Neheid’s son’s work for a political opposition group in Kenya.
“The translator was clearly not interpreting competently,” said Mr. Boulakia. “Throughout the hearing he was butchering everything, completely missing what was being said. He was saying things in English that were gibberish.”
The interpreter failed to relay portions of questions and answers, provided inaccurate translations of what was said and spoke broken English and poor Swahli, court documents say.
The woman testified that her son went to political rallies and put up opposition posters, for example. The interpreter gave her answer in English: “Sometimes he come home with postage.”
The adjudicator admonished Ms. Neheid for being “evasive and at times incoherent” and expressed frustration with her perceived lack of co-operation.
When her lawyer raised the problem, the adjudicator said that because none of them spoke Swahili it could not be said errors were being made.
The woman’s daughter, who was at the hearing and speaks a little English, also voiced concern but was told to be quiet by the adjudicator.
Ms. Neheid’s refugee claim was denied and she and her daughter were ordered back to Kenya.
Two other Swahili translators, including Oswald Almasi, a certified translator who teaches Swahili at the University of Toronto and York University, listened to a recording of the hearing. Both dismissed the interpreter as incompetent in sworn statements filed in court.
“The interpreter makes mistakes about very elementary words in Swahili,” said Mr. Almasi. “I do not believe he could be competent to interpret in any hearing.”
At the original hearing, the interpreter was even told to ask Ms. Neheid about the quality of his interpretation, the record shows. Ms. Neheid said she did not believe he was translating properly. The interpreter gave her answer in English as: “I want to know, to understanding very well, what he asks this guy.”
Federal Court Justice Michael Phelan overturned the IRB’s decision, saying there were “serious erroneous translation” that “led to adverse credibility findings.”
“The board was clearly frustrated by what they heard through the interpreter. The applicant and her daughter were likewise frustrated and perplexed by the translation and the board’s reaction,” Justice Phelan ruled.
“The court finds that there was a breach of fairness by reason of unreasonable translation.”
The same interpreter had been ejected from another refugee hearing over complaints of incompetance, the Federal Court was told.
The IRB would not discuss Ms. Neheid’s case or say why a translator previously removed would still be hired. The IRB, however, said interpretation rarely goes awry.
“The IRB has in place a complaints procedure for anyone who has concerns regarding the competence or comportment of any of the IRB’s contracted interpreters to ensure ongoing high-quality interpreter services,” said spokeswoman Anna Pape.
“Complaints are rare. Cases that are returned to the IRB for a new hearing on the basis of inadequate interpretation services are exceedingly rare.”
Refugee lawyers do not share that view.
Complaints of systemic problems have been made by the Refugee Lawyers’ Association, which branded it a “crisis situation” where mistakes were “routine.”
In the 1990s, a refugee claim was delayed for years because a qualified Kusai translator could not be found. It took so long the claimant had learned English well enough to eventually proceed without a translator.
The IRB has 1,200 contracted interpreters in 267 languages and dialects. Mr. Boulakia hopes that after this case, there will be one less.
Justice Phelan also suggests a check.
“It is impossible to know from this record whether the translator is generally not sufficiently versed in the languages to be a translator. The court would expect the board to consider that matter and if the translator is found not to be qualified, the board would consider what impact that matter would have had in other cases.”
National Post
ahumphreys@nationalpost.com
LOST IN TRANSLATION
- The woman was asked why she had not claimed refugee status at the airport and she said that she had not known that was possible.
The interpreter gave her answer in English: “I didn’t do anything about it.”
- The woman testified that her son went to political rallies and put up opposition posters.
The interpreter gave her answer in English: “Sometimes he come home with postage.”
- The woman testified: “I was helping.”
The interpreter gave her answer in English: “I was helped.”
- The interpreter asked in Swahili if he was interpreting well. The woman said she did not believe he was.
The interpreter gave her answer in English: “I want to know, to understanding very well, what he asks this guy.”
- The woman was asked if she was a member of the political party. She said she was a supporter but not a member.
The interpreter said in English: “I’m not member but I was fanner.”
- The woman was asked: “You have another daughter that is not in Canada?”
The interpreter said to her in Swahili: You have another daughter “who is in Canada”?
- The woman said she was “not sure” of the answer to a question.
The interpreter gave her answer in English: “I was not thinking.”
- The woman was asked about her “son-in-law,” and the interpreter asked instead about her “grandson.” The adjudicator got annoyed with her for not answering the question.
- The woman testified: “I saw my son.”
The interpreter said in English: “She saw his son.”
- The woman testified that police had asked her about her son.
The interpreter gave her answer in English: “They just asked my son.”
- The lawyer asked what street the first house had been on. The interpreter asked her what “area” she lived in. Then the adjudicator was frustrated she did not answer with specifics.
- The woman said “to his friend’s home.”
The interpreter gave her answer in English: “With his friend.”
Source: National Post
No comments:
Post a Comment