| Step Two |
|
Regarding the designation of individuals to review applications: The change here is to broaden the pool of EOIR employees authorized to conduct the application review. Agency cross-component participation in the paper review will now be allowed, which will significantly increase EOIR’s capacity to screen applications expeditiously, and allows EOIR to reduce the time for this step from three to two weeks.
|
|
| Step Two |
Regarding the use of evaluation criteria: This step will now apply specific criteria to applications to determine which candidates qualify for an interview, enhancing both consistency and transparency in this step of the process. The criteria and hiring guidance will be provided to every individual reviewing an application or conducting an interview |
| Step Two |
|
Regarding the evaluation of candidates to recommend for first-round interviews: This step eliminates the tier system for the first-round interview selection and specifies that panels of three reviewers will evaluate applications and that a majority of the reviewers on the panel must vote to recommend the candidate for a first-round interview. This enhances transparency and consistency in this step of the process.
|
|
| Step Two |
Regarding the default selection of qualified EOIR employees for first round interviews: Selecting experienced EOIR candidates for first-round interviews by default communicates to EOIR staff that the Department and agency value their expertise and endorse their interest in seeking promotion to a judgeship or appellate judgeship. A default interview in this instance also represents a minor efficiency for the process, since qualified internal candidates routinely get selected for a first interview and the review of their paper application is of little or no value. |
| Step Three |
|
Regarding the scheduling of first round interviews: Previously, no interviews were scheduled until the paper review was completed for the entire applicant pool. This change allows EOIR to start scheduling interviews as soon as applicants are recommended for interview, thus eliminating time lost to waiting for the paper review to complete. Also, for candidates who were recently interviewed under a previous advertisement, eliminating a first-round re-interview saves time and interviewer resources
|
|
| Step Three |
Regarding the composition of the first-round interview panel: Hereafter, the first-round interview may be conducted by two people instead of three, which will significantly increase EOIR’s capacity to interview candidates expeditiously. |
| Step Three |
Regarding the use of the application reviewer worksheet: Each interviewer will need to do a written evaluation of the candidate and not just an overall recommendation, creating a clearer record of the consideration given each candidate interviewed. Specific criteria will be used to evaluate applications to determine which candidates qualify for a second interview, enhancing both consistency and transparency in this step of the process. |
| Step Three |
Regarding the timing requirement that interviewers upload their reviews within two days: The revised process will reduce administrative time, requiring interviewers to promptly upload their summaries and thereby allowing the EOIR Director to consider candidates for the next round of interviews on a rolling basis. |
| Step Three |
Regarding the removal of the requirement that the Chief Immigration Judge create a ranked referral list: Previously, the Chief Immigration Judge created a referral list and ranking before forwarding applications to the EOIR Director, which amounted to an unnecessary and functionally redundant step. That step in the process has been removed. |
| Step Four |
Regarding the scheduling of some second-round interviews prior to completion of all first-round interviews: Previously, the EOIR Director’s screening followed the completion of first-round interviews, and the next round of interviews could not begin until the EOIR Director had reviewed the entire set of candidates. This change allows applications ripe for the next stage of consideration to move forward without waiting for every other application at that stage. |
| Step Four |
Regarding the requirement that the EOIR Director note a rationale for deviating from the panel recommendation: The EOIR Director will now record the rationale for deviating from panel recommendations, ensuring greater transparency if a selection or non-selection is challenged. Also, initiating the background check process at this stage of the process will save time overall but also may allow the agency to identify candidate flaws prior to an offer being made and while alternate candidates are still available. |
| Step Five |
Regarding the selection of panelists for the second-round interviews: The change expands the pool of potential members of a second-round panel, easing the persistent issue of finding an adequate supply of second- round interviewers. It also eliminates the requirement that the Deputy Attorney General and the AAG/A appoint second-round interview panelists. |
| Step Five |
Regarding the use of the application reviewer worksheet: Each panel will need to discuss the candidate, reach a consensus decision, and do a written evaluation of the candidate and not just an overall rating, creating a clearer record of the consideration given each candidate interviewed. Specific criteria will be used to evaluate applications to determine which candidates qualify for a further consideration, enhancing both consistency and transparency in this step of the process. |
| Step Five |
Regarding the scheduling of the second-round interviews: Historically, second-round interviews have not begun until first-round interviews have been completed. Concurrent interviewing, rather than sequential, saves time in the overall process. |
|
Step Six
|
Regarding the EOIR Director’s submission of a recommended slate of IJ candidates: Previously, panelists from the second-round interview would provide the EOIR Director an oral accounting of the recommendation of the panelists, and the EOIR Director would provide an oral accounting of the candidates to ODAG or the Office of the Attorney General. With this change, the second-round panel will provide a written recommendation for each candidate, and further transparency will be achieved via the “recommendation memo” that the EOIR Director will provide to ODAG (which will also include a general overview of the process and individualized information for each candidate who is recommended for a tentative offer). The written memorandum will include all candidates whom the EOIR Director would be inclined to offer a position, whether or not a specific vacancy exists at the time the recommendations are forwarded to ODAG, and will not be location specific. |
| Step Seven |
Regarding the selection of tentative offers: Historically, EOIR has closed the referral list upon the completion of selections but will now keep the referral list open past the selections of candidates. This change will enable EOIR to select the ‘next best’ candidates without having to re-advertise where (i) a selectee declines an offer, (ii) an offer is withdrawn due to suitability or a security concern, or (iii) a vacancy is created by an unanticipated retirement or separation during the validity of the referral list. |
| |
|
U.S. Department
of Justice
