The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has revoked a 2023 memorandum addressing language access in immigration courts, a decision that could impact interpretation services and language accessibility for non-English-speaking individuals during immigration proceedings.
The original directive, EOIR Director’s Memorandum (DM) 23-02, titled “Language Access in Immigration Court,” was issued on June 6, 2023. It provided guidance to immigration judges on handling language access issues. However, on February 6, 2025, EOIR Acting Director Sirce E. Owen issued Policy Memorandum (PM) 25-20, officially rescinding and canceling DM 23-02.
“While DM 23-02 may have been well-intentioned, its inappropriate direction, questionable lawfulness, and paternalistic and patronizing tone do not justify its retention. In particular, its directive instructing immigration judges to gather evidence outside of court exceeds the authority of both the memorandum and the judges themselves. The role of an immigration judge is not to serve as a roving inspector of detention facility libraries operated by the Department of Homeland Security. Directing immigration judges to engage in extrajudicial fact-finding about such libraries was grossly improper,” the new memorandum states.
It further criticizes DM 23-02 for pressuring immigration judges to extend certain deadlines based on out-of-court evidence that had not been reviewed by all parties involved. According to PM 25-20, this approach “overrode individual immigration judge discretion and was based on an unsubstantiated belief that judges are incapable of handling language access issues on their own.”
Additionally, the new memo argues that many noncitizens, particularly those with legal representation, may not require language access services or may choose to waive them, especially in master calendar hearings.
Despite revoking DM 23-02, EOIR reaffirmed its commitment to language access and interpretation services, stating, “EOIR recognizes the importance of language access and interpreters for noncitizens appearing in immigration proceedings and remains committed to providing professional interpretation services in all appropriate cases.” The memorandum also asserts confidence in immigration judges and interpreters, stating that there is “no need to dictate a one-size-fits-all script” and that there is “unequivocally no authorization for immigration judges to engage in out-of-court fact-finding without giving all parties an opportunity to be heard.”
The revocation of DM 23-02 does not reinstate the prior Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 04-08. EOIR will continue adhering to the Department of Justice’s Language Access Plan and any applicable EOIR Language Access Plan, according to the new memorandum.
What Was in the Previous Language Access Memo?
The now-rescinded DM 23-02 was aimed at ensuring that noncitizens with limited English proficiency had full and fair opportunities to present their cases in immigration court. It mandated the provision of in-court interpretation services and reasonable access to out-of-court translation services.
“EOIR must ensure that every noncitizen who appears before an immigration court has a full and fair opportunity to present their case. To achieve this, noncitizens with limited English proficiency must be provided with in-court interpretation in their preferred language. In many cases, they must also have reasonable access to out-of-court translation services,” the previous memo stated.
DM 23-02 emphasized that noncitizens should receive complete and accurate interpretation during all immigration court hearings. It instructed immigration judges to identify a noncitizen’s preferred language at the start of each case by asking open-ended questions such as, “What language do you prefer to communicate in?” or “What language do you speak and understand best?” Judges were discouraged from presenting binary options such as “Do you speak Spanish?”
For detained noncitizens, the memo required immigration judges to be familiar with the language resources available at detention facilities, including on-site libraries and translation services. Judges were expected to ensure detainees had access to these resources when preparing applications and legal documents.
The previous memo also acknowledged the complexities of language access, noting that some noncitizens may have limited proficiency in the dominant language of their country of origin and may be fluent only in an Indigenous language. It emphasized the importance of ensuring that an interpreter and the noncitizen could fully understand each other before proceeding with testimony.
Additionally, DM 23-02 recognized the need for flexibility in setting filing deadlines, especially for noncitizens requiring translation services. It advised judges to consider factors such as the availability of interpreters and the potential challenges in translating Indigenous or rare languages.
“Fairness dictates that noncitizens with limited English proficiency must always be provided with in-court interpretation and reasonable access to out-of-court translation services. Immigration judges must ensure these principles are upheld to the extent of their authority,” the previous memo concluded.
Kishor Panthi
View More PostsKishor Panthi is the founder and editor-in-chief of Khasokhas and NepYork. He is the author of three books, “Kampan,” "UNTRANSLATABLE" and “Zero Mile.” He writes about social issues, immigration, and politics.
