Search for a translator for an immigration filing and almost every result promises the same thing: USCIS approved. Some say USCIS certified. Some say government approved. One of the largest providers puts "USCIS Approved" in its headline and, fifteen hundred words down the same page, states that no such credential exists.
It does not. USCIS approves no translator, certifies no company and publishes no list. There is nothing to be on.
That is not a technicality, and it is worth understanding before you pay anyone — because once you know what the rule actually asks for, you can check any provider against it in about a minute.
Read it twice. It asks for two things and names no third party:
- A full English translation — not a summary, not an extract.
- The translator's own certification that the translation is complete and accurate, and that they are competent to translate from that language.
That is the whole of it. No credential, no accreditation, no membership, no seal, and no approval.
Why "approved" is not a small exaggeration
A claim of government approval says a federal agency has examined a company and endorsed it. Nothing of the kind happens. USCIS does not audit translators, does not maintain a register, and does not pre-clear anyone's work. An adjudicator reads what is filed and decides on that filing.
So a vendor claiming approval is describing a relationship that does not exist. Sometimes it is loose marketing. Sometimes it is deliberate. Either way it tells you something about how carefully the rest of their claims were written.
What to check instead
You cannot verify an approval that does not exist. You can verify all of this, and it takes a minute.
| What is commonly advertised | What the rule actually asks | Can you verify it? |
|---|---|---|
| USCIS approved / certified company | Nothing — no such status exists | No |
| 100% acceptance guarantee | Nothing — acceptance is the adjudicator's decision | No |
| Certified translators | The translator certifies; no credential is required | Ask to see the certificate wording |
| Full English translation | Required. Summaries are not permitted | Count the messages against your own file |
| Signed certification of completeness and accuracy | Required, and it must name the translator | Read it before you file |
| Statement of competence in the language | Required | Read it before you file |
Ask for the certificate wording before you buy
A real certification names the translator, identifies exactly what was translated, and states both things the regulation requires. If a provider cannot show you that wording in advance, they are selling the promise rather than the document.
Ask whether the translation is complete
The Policy Manual is explicit that a summary prepared by a translator is unacceptable. For a chat history, that means every message in whatever range you submit — not a representative sample, and not the parts that read best.
Ignore the guarantee
Acceptance is decided by the officer reading your filing, against the whole of your evidence. Nobody selling translation controls that, and a guarantee that cannot be enforced against the person who actually decides is worth what it costs to print.
What about notarisation?
Also not required. Notarisation attests that a signature is genuine; it says nothing about whether a translation is accurate, and 8 CFR 103.2(b)(3) does not mention it. Consulates, courts and some receiving bodies do ask for it, which is why it is worth having available — but for a USCIS filing it is optional, and anyone telling you it is compulsory is selling it to you.
Can you translate your own documents?
This is the question the market answers three different ways, and it is worth being precise.
The regulation sets no disinterested-party requirement for documents. The rule people cite for that governs interpreters at interviews — Policy Manual, Volume 7, Part A, Chapter 5 — and is routinely conflated with the document rule.
So: the rule permits it. The risk is discretionary. Certifying your own relationship evidence means signing a statement about your own case, which is the thing most easily argued with — and it is a different situation from translating a civil-registry document that says what it says regardless of who read it.
What nobody can promise
That USCIS will accept your filing. Not us, and not anyone quoting a percentage.
What is inside a provider's control is meeting the stated requirement exactly: a full translation rather than a selection, the certificate the regulation names, the translator identified, and every line traceable to the original it came from. Treat anyone offering more than that as having told you something about themselves.
Sources
Questions
- Is there a list of USCIS-approved translators?
No. USCIS approves no translator, certifies no company and publishes no list. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(3) requires a full English translation and the translator's own certification of completeness, accuracy and competence — and names no third party at all.
Any provider advertising approval is describing a status that does not exist.
- What makes a translation “certified”, then?
The translator's signed statement. It certifies that the translation is complete and accurate and that they are competent to translate from that language into English, and it identifies what was translated.
Certification is a document the translator signs, not a status a company holds.
- Do I need an ATA-certified translator?
No. The American Translators Association is a professional body, not a government one, and the regulation imposes no membership or credential requirement. ATA membership is a reasonable signal about a provider; it is not something USCIS asks for.
- Are “100% USCIS acceptance guarantees” real?
Acceptance is the adjudicator's decision, made against your whole filing. No translation provider controls it, so no translation provider can guarantee it.
A guarantee with published scope and a stated remedy is at least a refund policy. One with neither is a sentence.
This describes how a record and its translation are produced. It is not legal advice and not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. BonaFile is not a law firm, does not assess cases, and cannot promise how any filing will be decided.