Blog by Molly Mulhaire
In the 1951 Refugee Convention, it was stated that asylum seekers have the right to an interpreter, which, for many asylum seekers with limited or no knowledge of the host country’s language, is crucial in allowing for effective communication. The asylum interview is used for claimants to explain how they were persecuted in their country of origin and why they fear returning. These interviews will often require disclosure of extremely traumatic and personal retellings of persecution, relying on the interpreter to convey these messages faithfully. It is universally accepted that interpreters aid linguistic communication, but questions arise as to whether they aid communication in other ways, such as socially or culturally. In public service interpreting (PSI), importance is often given to the concept of impartiality, defining the role of the interpreter as solely to convey a message, with no other interaction between speakers. The efficacy of ‘invisible interpreting’ in the context of asylum screenings, where social and cultural factors often play a crucial role is therefore questionable, especially given that interpreters are often hired solely on their linguistic aptitude (page 4) despite not having training for the asylum situation. This essay will explore the complexities of the role of the interpreter in asylum interviews, focusing particularly on how the difficulties of interpreter invisibility and impartiality in an asylum context can create inconsistencies in the system. The essay will frame the discussion in the context of the UK asylum process, drawing upon examples in related fields of study globally to explore how outside research can be applicable to the asylum context.
Asylum interviews are situations with inherent power imbalances, in which an asylum seeker must work to prove their claim in a country with unfamiliar language and institutions. Asylum seekers begin their process in an inherently vulnerable state, due to their temporary position in the desired host country, where they must then present their appeal for asylum to a caseworker who has to make the decision on whether or not they may remain. Asylum seekers’ vulnerability is compounded in interpreter-mediated interviews as they must rely on the interpreter to ‘be their voice’ in a situation which will decide their future. In the UK, 109,343 people claimed asylum in the year ending March 2025, a 17% rise from the previous year (Home Office, 2025). These statistics highlight the increasing pressure the asylum system in the UK is facing and the number of individuals’ lives affected by guidance and legislation. Though asylum seekers have the right to an interpreter, it is not always possible to find one in their chosen language. The Home Office guidance on using interpreters in asylum interviews (page 26) states:
“Every effort should be made to find an interpreter in the claimant’s chosen language. However, if you cannot find an interpreter in their preferred language you must use an interpreter who speaks the language used at the screening interview.”
This compounds the vulnerability of the asylum seeker, as they must make their claim not only through the voice of another, but in a language with which they may not be comfortable owing to reasons such as their language command or the cultural and political connotations of the language in the country they are fleeing. The role of this linguistic vulnerability in asylum interviews limits interpreter invisibility, as claimants are assessed on the truthfulness, credibility, and plausibility of their account; in other words, the outcome of an asylum application relies on the credibility of an oral account which is being delivered by the interpreter.
The Home Office guidance on assessing credibility (page 15) states that any differences between those claimants’ statements made at screening and those in the interview in spoken or written language must be taken into consideration, as should inconsistencies with statements of family members. When such credibility assessments rely directly on examining language use, the interpreter’s role in the interaction cannot be ignored. For example, the use of different interpreters at different stages could affect the way a story is told, as each interpreter will interpret things slightly differently through their word choice for example. The Home Office does acknowledge this in the guidance, stating that caseworkers should “approach apparent inconsistencies with care” in interpreter-mediated encounters due to these potential inconsistencies. However, the guidance gives little detail to caseworkers about how to recognise inconsistencies related to interpretation, with the advice of approaching statements ‘with care’ seemingly left to the caseworker’s individual judgement. With no clear guidance on how to recognise the role of the interpreter on the consistency of the claimants’ statements, this opens up the potential for caseworkers to unknowingly assess claimants’ credibility based on the word choice and phrasing (or rephrasing) by the interpreter. Therefore, the interpreter cannot be considered an invisible party in the exchange, as caseworkers must make the assessment based on the information they have received via the interpreter.
A further issue with the concept of interpreter invisibility in asylum interviews relates to their emotionally charged and traumatic content. Over 38,000 people survived the dangerous journey to the UK by small boats in the year to March 2025. To claim asylum, people must describe in detail the reasons they have fled their country. In many cases, this includes recalling traumatic experiences. The Home Office guidance on asylum interviews (page 8) states:
“It is important that you create an environment in which claimants feel at ease and able to disclose all relevant information to you […] some evidence may be highly complex and emotive […]. Such evidence is crucial to ensure that asylum claims are properly considered, so that protection is granted to those who genuinely need it and refused to those who do not.” (2021: 8)
The guidance recognises the emotive nature of asylum interviews and the importance of creating a comfortable environment for claimants to disclose sensitive information. When claimants are disclosing this sensitive information through the voice of an interpreter it is therefore important to establish trust which requires some extra level of communication between claimant and interpreter. If it is expected that the interpreter plays the role of invisible communicator, the extent to which this is conducive with an environment which builds trust between interpreter and claimant can be questioned. The International Association of Conference Interpreters states (page 3) that interpreters’ conduct towards clients “shall be based on principles of independence, impartiality and responsibility”. The concepts of invisibility and impartiality advise against private conversations and the manifestation of personal feelings; seemingly incompatible with advice which recommends establishing trust between parties and allowing them to feel at ease. If an asylum seeker is using an interpreter to open up about traumatic experiences to the caseworker, they are effectively disclosing this information to the interpreter, who has not had the opportunity to build a relationship with the asylum seeker to create the trust needed for disclosure.
Despite guidelines outlining impartiality as a practice interpreters should adhere to, studies have found that in asylum-related cases these codes of conduct are not always followed, creating inconsistencies. For example, in Jiménez Ivars’ study analysing the compliance with impartiality and accuracy by interpreters working in a refugee setting, it was found that “the highest diverging scores refer to attitudes affecting impartiality [and that] most prevalent diverted behaviours are directly connected to emotionally charged situations.” (2020: 166-167). Furthermore, Tryuk’s interviews with immigration officers about the role of the interpreter found that many accounts related to situations in which it was “unlikely for the interpreter to remain neutral or impartial [and sometimes] not possible for the interpreter to abstain from interfering in the communication when a foreigner shows emotion [and] officers believe that the interpreter should take control over the course of the events if the foreigner behaves in an aggressive way.” (2017: 186). Some of these situations relate to interpreters comforting claimants by holding their hands, hugging, and asking officers to stop questioning until the claimant had regained composure, all of which are behaviours which conflict with impartiality. The fact that many interpreters will deviate from these tenets in emotional contexts shows a degree of personal choice and action on behalf of the interpreter as to whether to intervene. Professional interpreters may feel forced to reject impartiality in order to do their job most effectively, resulting in inconsistencies between recommendations to remain impartial, and empirical observations which show the efficacy of interpreter intervention in creating a trustworthy and supportive environment for asylum seekers which is preferred.
Furthermore, while the emotional elements of the interview can put the asylum seeker in a vulnerable state, the issues and topics discussed in the interview can also take an emotional toll on the interpreters, who may experience this trauma vicariously. Globally, around two-thirds of refugees under UNHCR’s mandate have been displaced for five years or more, meaning that many applicants enter asylum systems after years of protracted trauma. Vicarious trauma has the potential to be damaging for the mental health and wellbeing of interpreters as, unlike the professional case workers they are interpreting for, interpreters often don’t have the same structures in place such as debriefing to help process the traumatic content they are working with. This vicarious trauma inevitably influences the interpreter’s ability to remain invisible and impartial, as the traumatic events discussed could be difficult for the interpreter to hear and negotiate, or may even remind interpreters of their own experiences.
This latter issue is exacerbated due to the expectation that the interpreter conveys everything in the first person, meaning they must recount these stories as if they were talking about their personal experience. Furthermore, unlike caseworkers, who listen and record information once, interpreters must process traumatic narratives multiple times in order to perform their role effectively. First, they listen and perceive the claimant’s words, often accompanied by emotional non-verbal cues. Second, they must understand and analyse the meaning, weighing both semantic accuracy and cultural nuance. Third, they must convert the message into the target language in real time, selecting appropriate phrasing. Finally, they deliver the message, effectively re-enacting the trauma in the claimant’s voice. This layered processing means that interpreters do not simply transmit information but are required to re-live it at least four times, magnifying the emotional impact and increasing the risk of vicarious trauma.
Bancroft’s research reflects this burden, with “nearly three-quarters (73%) of surveyed interpreters stated that they had been emotionally impacted by interpreting for survivors, a situation which self-evidently affects their impartiality.” (2017: 209). Bancroft’s findings can be applied to the asylum context, as trauma is a salient feature of many asylum interviews which, without the necessary support for interpreters to successfully negotiate these situations, is further evidence that suggests that the notions of invisibility and impartiality in asylum interpreting are difficult to achieve. The traumatic content in the interviews not only promotes feelings of empathy towards the claimant but it can also have a psychological impact on the interpreter who does not have the support to deal with confronting these topics. The personal emotions that interpreters are encouraged to suppress according to guidelines on impartiality are directly related to the content of the interview, making it almost impossible for interpreters to detach themselves completely in this way.
The issue of adequate support for interpreters in trauma related cases is explored in Lai and Costello’s study, in which interpreters expressed a desire for professional support for vicarious trauma, through being “treated as a part of the team, access to employee assistance, and access to targeted professional development.” (2021: 78). Recognition for the need for this support is gaining some traction, with ‘trauma-informed interpreting’, a practice of interpreting integrating research on trauma, emerging as a growing field of research in PSI. Organisations currently exist outside of the asylum system who aid clear communication by working with trauma-informed interpreters who understand when to intervene, while respecting professional boundaries. Organisations such as Freedom From Torture treat interpreters as active participants who can build relationships with clients and provide their own opinion, with interpreters working with clients long-term to build trust. This model of interpreting maintains the role of interpreter as a facilitator of communication but rejects notions of invisibility, encouraging a triadic exchange rather than the traditional dyadic communication model usually favoured in PSI. Though Freedom From Torture work specifically with victims of trauma in long term therapy sessions, elements of their work with interpreters can be applicable to the asylum process. In a study by Medecins Sans Frontiers on the ‘Mental Health Crisis at Wethersfield Containment Site’ 68% of those surveyed disclosed that they had experienced violence or abuse in their lifetime. By providing interpreters with relevant knowledge to work in emotionally complex cases, and providing necessary support for interpreters outside of interview, interpreters will be better equipped to understand how to control their emotions, when to express them and when to actively intervene in the communication. Furthermore, the introduction of trauma-informed interpreting in the asylum screening system could help to homogenise the practice of interpreters. For example, aiming to suppress interpreter visibility is not always possible and is therefore recognised to different extents between interpreters. Clear guidance on how to work with the visible interpreter can aid cultural, social and emotional communication to the same extent in all asylum contexts.
123.2 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide as of the end of 2024, including 8.4 million asylum seekers, the highest number ever recorded. With these growing numbers comes increasing pressure on governments to effectively assess their claims, and without an updated and consistent working model, many asylum seekers will be failed by the system. Despite guidance being in place for PSI, there is a failure to effectively address the unique challenges arising from interpreting in an asylum context. The accepted standard that interpreters act as invisible facilitators of linguistic communication to aid a dyadic exchange is something which needs to be addressed in the asylum context in particular. Given the emotional nature and high stakes context of asylum interpreting, where interpreters can have a bearing on the rest of the asylum seeker’s life, and the recognition of the importance for interpreter training in other related contexts, clear support and guidance is lacking for interpreter-mediated asylum interviews. By acknowledging the improbability of true interpreter invisibility and impartiality in these contexts, and by embracing interpreters’ abilities to act as cultural communicators, interpreter-mediated asylum interviews can be used to the advantage of all parties to create a consistent working model. Rather than ignoring the presence of an interpreter and the complexities that come with this, models of trauma-informed interpreting and visible interpreting could be applied to the asylum process to aid communication in the most efficient and appropriate way for claimants, caseworkers and interpreters.
References
Bancroft, M. A. (2017) ‘The interpreter’s world tour: An environmental scan of standards of practice for interpreters’, in The Routledge Handbook of Public Service Interpreting. London: Routledge, pp. 191–213.
Jiménez Ivars, A. (2020) ‘Interpreting in refugee contexts: Accuracy, impartiality and empathy’, Translation & Interpreting Studies, 15(1), pp. 150–172.
Lai, M. and Costello, S. (2021) ‘Interpreter wellbeing: vicarious trauma and support needs’, Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 15(1), pp. 67–84.
Tryuk, M. (2017) ‘Impartiality and emotional involvement in interpreting’, in New Trends in Public Service Interpreting and Translation. London: Routledge, pp. 179–190.
Molly Mulhaire is a masters graduate of translation and interpreting from the university of Manchester. She is a volunteer for the refugee charity organisation Respond Crisis Translation and works full time teaching English to displaced persons and providing vital service access mentorship.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.