Multilingual natural language inference (NLI) benchmarks are routinely constructed by translating English datasets into target languages, based on the assumption that inference relations between premise–hypothesis pairs are preserved under translation. This assumption, however, has rarely been tested empirically at scale. We investigate this by conducting a large-scale human annotation study across nine typologically diverse languages: Arabic, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Thai, Urdu, Turkish, Mandarin, and Cantonese. We translated 1,000 English premise–hypothesis pairs, sampled across four linguistically challenging phenomena, and annotated each target-language version by a native-speaker linguist. Additionally, a native English speaker annotated the source pairs under the same protocol, allowing us to distinguish source-label disagreement from translation-induced change. While agreement between translated-language annotations and the original dataset labels ranges from 55.1% to 67.4%, agreement with the native-English annotation ranges from 57.8% to 64.2%. Entailment and Contradiction frequently shift toward Neutral, but the English control shows that some apparent drift is already present in the source items. These results call into question using transfer of English labels and highlight the need for native-language annotation in multilingual NLI evaluation.