Consecutive Interpreting: Police Documents and Registration in Asylum Court
At a 9:30 a.m. removal hearing in a U.S. immigration court, you are the Russian-language consecutive interpreter for a 34-year-old asylum applicant from Dagestan. The hearing is audio-recorded; the I-589 is 22 pages. Direct examination has run 40 minutes. The applicant says: 'Они сказали, что у них есть постановление, и перевернули всё вверх дном.' The attorney then asks about a police visit in 2019, and the applicant says: 'Меня поставили на учёт.' The judge interrupts: 'What does that mean - registered him? A warrant? A watch list?' The attorney objects that the interpreter used 'resolution' for постановление and 'upside down' for вверх дном. The judge asks you to explain your choices on the record, not to give legal advice. A second interpreter is monitoring but is not at the table.
1. How do you render постановление and поставили на учёт in the record, and what do you say when the judge asks you to explain?
Read the worked answer
I would keep the source ambiguity visible rather than upgrade either term. For постановление I would say 'they said they had an order' or, if needed, 'a document they called a postanovlenie'; I would not say 'warrant' because the applicant did not say ордер. For поставили на учёт I would render 'they registered me' and immediately ask a clarifying question: 'Уточните, пожалуйста: речь о регистрации, профилактическом учёте или о чём-то ещё?' I would then render the answer, not my inference.
To the judge I would explain the linguistic choices: постановление covers a decision, order, or formal act; 'resolution' was too narrow and institutional. Вверх дном literally means 'upside down'; 'ransacked' is an interpretation that adds a search characterization. If the court wants 'ransacked,' it should come from the witness's clarification, not from me. I would not explain Russian police practice or tell the judge what the document legally was.
2. The attorney objects to 'upside down' as prejudicial. How do you respond, and what correction, if any, do you request?
Read the worked answer
I would not defend the wording as advocacy. I would state the source phrase and offer a more neutral re-rendering: 'They said they had an order and turned everything upside down.' If the attorney prefers 'they searched and disrupted the apartment,' I would note that this adds the word 'search,' which the applicant did not use at that point. I would ask the judge for permission to put one clarifying question to the witness: 'Вы имели в виду, что они искали вещи, или что они перевернули мебель?' That keeps the record accurate and lets the witness supply the characterization.
If the judge rules that 'upside down' is misleading, I would re-render as 'they turned the apartment upside down' and ask the court reporter to note the correction. I would not argue prejudice or insist that my version is the only possible one. The goal is a faithful record, not a winning phrase.
3. Later the applicant says 'Я подписал протокол, но не читал'. The judge asks whether протокол is a transcript, a protocol, or a statement. What do you do?
Read the worked answer
I would render the sentence first: 'I signed a protocol/record, but I did not read it.' Then I would flag the lexical problem rather than choose a legal category for the witness. Протокол in Russian can be a police record, an administrative protocol, minutes, or a transcript depending on context. The judge's question is about meaning, so I would ask the applicant: 'Что это был за документ: объяснение, протокол допроса, постановление?' and render the answer.
I would tell the judge: 'The word протокол is generic; the witness has not specified the document type.' I would not call it a 'transcript' unless the witness describes a verbatim record, and I would not call it a 'statement' if the witness says it was an official police form. If the witness cannot describe it, the record should show 'a document called a protocol' and the ambiguity should remain for the attorney to explore.