No, you seem to be stuck on that point.
Here is another example of something the interpreter said.
He stated in French: “Mais peut-être que c'est correct parce que la journée que j'étais que j'ai quitté la prison, c'était la journée il y a un accident de une airplane.”
Here we have an interpreter who does not know the French word for airplane. That's a very serious problem to have at a hearing to determine whether or not a person is likely to face persecution.
I fail to see how your department can defend IRB decisions in Federal Court by arguing that this interpretation is completely acceptable.