This thesis argues that the U.S. asylum system systematically denies non-English-speaking applicants the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection by failing to provide adequate language access. Through an applied legal analysis of immigration case law, statutory mandates, and agency policies, it demonstrates how the interpreter requirement for affirmative asylum interviews—specifically, the burden placed on applicants to supply their own interpreters—creates a two-tiered system of adjudication. While individuals in removal proceedings are afforded government-funded interpretation, those pursuing affirmative claims through USCIS are not, resulting in an inequitable and inconsistent experience of justice. This disparity reflects a broader failure to treat language access as fundamental to fairness, instead relegating it to a procedural convenience. Situating the issue within anti-discrimination frameworks and international refugee law, the paper contends that interpreter access must be redefined as a right, not a privilege. The analysis is especially timely considering recent 2025 policy changes under President Trump's second administration, which have weakened federal language access mandates and reduced interpreter availability—amplifying structural exclusion. The thesis ultimately calls for statutory and regulatory reforms to establish interpreter access as an essential safeguard of linguistic equity in asylum adjudication.
Virginia Elizabeth Wright (Sun,) studied this question.