DOJ Honors 2013

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:apparently a friend of mine just discovered that he was notified that he was scheduled for an interview by mistake--good luck with the job search!

wow. devastating.

Oh, man, this is my NIGHTMARE. Seriously. You'd think they'd just interview the person and reject them rather than having to say it was a mistake he was selected... ugh.


or at least figured it out before going through the trouble of faxing itineraries and whatnot.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:39 pm

Not to freak anyone out, but... if your schedule seems at all weird, you might want to confirm it with the component? I won't bother going into the gory details, but I just found out that my faxed interview schedule was wrong - it listed my interview as being three hours LATER than the time for which it's actually scheduled. There were signs suggesting the faxed time was incorrect, but when I tried to contact the DOJ scheduler over the last week, I didn't get any response. So I contacted the component person (who responded very quickly and helpfully).

I don't mean to suggest that all the schedules are screwed up or anything, but if there's anything that seems off about the timing of your travel plans (my time to fly out of the city seemed too close to my interview), better safe than sorry!

(I will now go breathe into a brown paper bag in the corner...)

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:46 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:OP here...thanks for the info. I'm not sure what you mean about first / second year. First year means started in 2012 and second year means started in 2011? If so, how is Baltimore open to hiring if they have 1 first year? Perhaps this suggests they will expand from 1 to 2?

Also, not sure how the whole SLIP thing works and how they could keep a spot open for them. Oh, and I should have been more precise...I live in metro DC, so I know the court is in VA. Was using DC as shorthand b/c it's all DC to me b/c the metro goes there. haha anyhow, thanks for the info...very useful overall.


First year clerks are called Judicial Law Clerks (JLCs) and second year clerks are called Attorney Advisors (AAs). Right now, Baltimore has one JLC. Baltimore has 5 IJs, and usually there is a ratio of 1 clerk for AT LEAST every 3/4 judges. Last month, the incoming class of JLCs was much lower than the year before. So some courts that had one clerk were left with none. For example, I think fiscal year 2011-2012 NYC had 10-11 clerks (4/5 AA's and 6 JLCs). This year they only got 2 new JLCs, which means there are 6AAs and 2 JLCs. This kind of thing happened nationwide because last year's hiring was much lower. I'm not sure if Baltimore "normally" has 2 clerks, I feel like I remember they did 2011-2012, but I'm not sure. 1 clerk for 5 judges may be fine for their needs... Philly only has 3 judges but during 2011-2012 they had two clerks - not sure why. I have no idea how HQ decides these things.

Basically I'm just making educated guesses here based on past numbers and the fact that this years hiring has gone up.

SLIPs basically can get funnel offers if they do well during the summer, so that would take away spots obviously (they don't have to interview - the summer was their interview). Only certain courts are allotted SLIPs though and SLIPs are offered positions in the court where they summered. I know SLIPs have attempted to request a different court for their clerkship but there's no guarantees (and I think that might actually put their offer in jeopardy, but I'm not positive). I think usually the big courts get SLIPs... but I know the current AA in Arlington was a SLIP, so what do I know. :P

Sorry you're looking for more solid answers than I have. They will give you a list of openings at your interview.



This is great insight. I would guess that hiring is up this year, b/c hiring is way up at DHS to ramp up for Deferred Action. I suspect that hiring in EOIR will surge perhaps in a related fashion given the potential caseloads that could result from DA applicants. On a policy note, advocacy orgs are trying to get DHS to commit to not referring DA cases to ICE, and ergo IC, but I don't know what the status of that is. DA referrals could push the IC caseload up dramatically, so is this why hiring is up? Inquiring minds want to know.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:50 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Anyone happen to know the number of EOIR openings in CA or elsewhere in the 9th circuit? Thanks.


Based off of this years #s, my best guess (see my last long comment about why this is a "guess", albeit an educated one) is that there will be at least: 2-5 in LA, 1 in SD, 2-3 in SF, 1 in Seattle, 0 in Tacoma, 0 in Portland, 0 in Salt Lake City, 1-2 in Eloy, 1 in Florence, 2 in Phoenix, 1 in East Mesa (SoCal), 1 in Las Vegas, and 1 in Tucson.


Judging from the location preferences we were given in the application, Tucson, Florence, Tacoma, and East Mesa don't have any spots.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:31 am

Official rejections finally came today it seems. FML

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:17 am

Is the Avue site not working for anyone else? I just logged in and suddenly the whole thing has changed and it says my application to DOJ is closed (my status was at Selected for Interview yesterday). I can no longer see the forum set up under the community tab either.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:27 am

Anonymous User wrote:Is the Avue site not working for anyone else? I just logged in and suddenly the whole thing has changed and it says my application to DOJ is closed (my status was at Selected for Interview yesterday). I can no longer see the forum set up under the community tab either.


There are actually two different Avue sites, but they look the exact same. You may have gone to the other one. Here is the one specifically for DOJ - https://www.avuedigitalservices.com/cas ... cy=dojoarm.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:47 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Is the Avue site not working for anyone else? I just logged in and suddenly the whole thing has changed and it says my application to DOJ is closed (my status was at Selected for Interview yesterday). I can no longer see the forum set up under the community tab either.


There are actually two different Avue sites, but they look the exact same. You may have gone to the other one. Here is the one specifically for DOJ - https://www.avuedigitalservices.com/cas ... cy=dojoarm.



Thanks, I got onto the right site now...it was weird, I had bookmarked the correct site, but it took me to the other one for some reason. I had used it tons of times before so I have no idea why that happened.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:08 pm

Anonymous User wrote:This is great insight. I would guess that hiring is up this year, b/c hiring is way up at DHS to ramp up for Deferred Action. I suspect that hiring in EOIR will surge perhaps in a related fashion given the potential caseloads that could result from DA applicants. On a policy note, advocacy orgs are trying to get DHS to commit to not referring DA cases to ICE, and ergo IC, but I don't know what the status of that is. DA referrals could push the IC caseload up dramatically, so is this why hiring is up? Inquiring minds want to know.


Deferred action is not processed in immigration court and so that has nothing to do with the increase in hiring. Deferred action applications are processed through DHS, not the DOJ. The increase in hiring must be solely due to an increase in the allocated budget for the JLC program.

If anything, DA would slightly decrease cases in immigration court since those cases will likely be terminated or administratively closed due to their eligibility for DA. The current caseload in immigration courts is already astronomical, with cases being set for hearing dates years in the future, and so this wouldn't even begin to put a dent in affecting the court's caseload. I would be willing to bet that most folks who are eligible for DA are not in proceedings, as they are the epitome of low-priority cases for DHS enforcement.

And re: ICE putting folks who are eligible for DA in proceedings in immigration court... that makes no sense and I cannot see why DHS would expend the effort to do so when the cases are just going to get administratively closed or terminated. It would be one arm of DHS working against the efforts of another. If non-profits are reminding DHS of this, then it's only in DHS' best interest to listen to them, but probably this is a message that's already being reinforced in DHS.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:19 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:09 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Anyone happen to know the number of EOIR openings in CA or elsewhere in the 9th circuit? Thanks.


Based off of this years #s, my best guess (see my last long comment about why this is a "guess", albeit an educated one) is that there will be at least: 2-5 in LA, 1 in SD, 2-3 in SF, 1 in Seattle, 0 in Tacoma, 0 in Portland, 0 in Salt Lake City, 1-2 in Eloy, 1 in Florence, 2 in Phoenix, 1 in East Mesa (SoCal), 1 in Las Vegas, and 1 in Tucson.


Judging from the location preferences we were given in the application, Tucson, Florence, Tacoma, and East Mesa don't have any spots.


The application on AVUE is not where you list your preferences. They will give you a list of openings at the INTERVIEW. The AVUE list and your preference in the AVUE system is irrelevant. If I remember correct, AVUE asks you to list your preference by region (correct me if I'm wrong) - this is not reflective of the real openings in the immigration courts.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:25 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Anyone happen to know the number of EOIR openings in CA or elsewhere in the 9th circuit? Thanks.


Based off of this years #s, my best guess (see my last long comment about why this is a "guess", albeit an educated one) is that there will be at least: 2-5 in LA, 1 in SD, 2-3 in SF, 1 in Seattle, 0 in Tacoma, 0 in Portland, 0 in Salt Lake City, 1-2 in Eloy, 1 in Florence, 2 in Phoenix, 1 in East Mesa (SoCal), 1 in Las Vegas, and 1 in Tucson.


Judging from the location preferences we were given in the application, Tucson, Florence, Tacoma, and East Mesa don't have any spots.


The application on AVUE is not where you list your preferences. They will give you a list of openings at the INTERVIEW. The AVUE list and your preference in the AVUE system is irrelevant. If I remember correct, AVUE asks you to list your preference by region (correct me if I'm wrong) - this is not reflective of the real openings in the immigration courts.


It did ask by region, but the regions listed cities. Several cities were notably absent. From what I know from my work with EOIR, the geographic locations preferences in the application was a new process this year and was hoped to assist the agency in its placing. I can see no other reason why certain cities would be left off the list unless it was because there would not be a position opening up this round. In previous years EOIR has given a location preference sheet at the interview, and the interview information says they will do so again this year. Do we know yet if anyone has received such a sheet at an EOIR interview this year?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote:It did ask by region, but the regions listed cities. Several cities were notably absent. From what I know from my work with EOIR, the geographic locations preferences in the application was a new process this year and was hoped to assist the agency in its placing. I can see no other reason why certain cities would be left off the list unless it was because there would not be a position opening up this round. In previous years EOIR has given a location preference sheet at the interview, and the interview information says they will do so again this year. Do we know yet if anyone has received such a sheet at an EOIR interview this year?


Ah then perhaps I stand corrected. I was speaking to the process when I went through it in the fall of 2010. I have commented a lot in this thread based on my knowledge, but I don't know what processes HQ is using this year and all the info I have offered has been an educated guess. I already had guessed Tacoma wouldn't have an opening. If they aren't hiring for East Mesa it wouldn't surprise me because it's a very small court. However, I would be surprised if they left Tacoma and Florence without clerks, but it's possible.

The interviews started yesterday with EOIR, so it would be interesting to hear what they are doing this year.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:37 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:It did ask by region, but the regions listed cities. Several cities were notably absent. From what I know from my work with EOIR, the geographic locations preferences in the application was a new process this year and was hoped to assist the agency in its placing. I can see no other reason why certain cities would be left off the list unless it was because there would not be a position opening up this round. In previous years EOIR has given a location preference sheet at the interview, and the interview information says they will do so again this year. Do we know yet if anyone has received such a sheet at an EOIR interview this year?


Ah then perhaps I stand corrected. I was speaking to the process when I went through it in the fall of 2010. I have commented a lot in this thread based on my knowledge, but I don't know what processes HQ is using this year and all the info I have offered has been an educated guess. I already had guessed Tacoma wouldn't have an opening. If they aren't hiring for East Mesa it wouldn't surprise me because it's a very small court. However, I would be surprised if they left Tacoma and Florence without clerks, but it's possible.

The interviews started yesterday with EOIR, so it would be interesting to hear what they are doing this year.


No, that makes complete sense. And thank you for your insight. I know I definitely appreciate it. I applied for SLIP last year, but this is my first application for the HP.

I have heard that there are quite a few differences in the process this year. Regarding locations, the AZ ones surprise me. I could see only listing Seattle instead of Seattle and Tacoma (since they are so close), but I would normally think that Florence would be listed separately as Phoenix and Eloy are both listed. Tucson and Florence are not listed though.

Here is the list as it was given to us for ranking:

MID-ATLANTIC STATES
Baltimore, MD
Elizabeth, NJ
Newark, NJ
Philadelphia, PA
York, PA
Arlington, VA
Falls Church, VA (Headquarters Immigration Court and OCAHO)

MIDWESTERN STATES
Chicago, IL
Detroit, MI
Bloomington, MN
Kansas City, MO
Omaha, NE
Cleveland, OH

NORTHEASTERN STATES
Boston, MA
Buffalo, NY
Hartford, CT
New York, NY

SOUTHERN AND SOUTHEASTERN STATES
Orlando, FL
Miami, FL (Immigration Court and Detention Center locations)
Atlanta, GA
Oakdale, LA
Charlotte, NC
Memphis, TN

SOUTHWESTERN STATES
Eloy, AZ
Phoenix, AZ
Dallas, TX
El Paso, TX
Harlingen, TX
Houston, TX (Immigration Court and Detention Center locations)
San Antonio, TX

WESTERN AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN STATES
Imperial, CA
Lancaster, CA
Los Angeles, CA
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
San Pedro, CA
Denver, CO
Las Vegas, NV
Salt Lake City, UT
Seattle, WA

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:48 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:It did ask by region, but the regions listed cities. Several cities were notably absent. From what I know from my work with EOIR, the geographic locations preferences in the application was a new process this year and was hoped to assist the agency in its placing. I can see no other reason why certain cities would be left off the list unless it was because there would not be a position opening up this round. In previous years EOIR has given a location preference sheet at the interview, and the interview information says they will do so again this year. Do we know yet if anyone has received such a sheet at an EOIR interview this year?


Ah then perhaps I stand corrected. I was speaking to the process when I went through it in the fall of 2010. I have commented a lot in this thread based on my knowledge, but I don't know what processes HQ is using this year and all the info I have offered has been an educated guess. I already had guessed Tacoma wouldn't have an opening. If they aren't hiring for East Mesa it wouldn't surprise me because it's a very small court. However, I would be surprised if they left Tacoma and Florence without clerks, but it's possible.

The interviews started yesterday with EOIR, so it would be interesting to hear what they are doing this year.


No, that makes complete sense. And thank you for your insight. I know I definitely appreciate it. I applied for SLIP last year, but this is my first application for the HP.

I have heard that there are quite a few differences in the process this year. Regarding locations, the AZ ones surprise me. I could see only listing Seattle instead of Seattle and Tacoma (since they are so close), but I would normally think that Florence would be listed separately as Phoenix and Eloy are both listed. Tucson and Florence are not listed though.

Here is the list as it was given to us for ranking:

MID-ATLANTIC STATES
Baltimore, MD
Elizabeth, NJ
Newark, NJ
Philadelphia, PA
York, PA
Arlington, VA
Falls Church, VA (Headquarters Immigration Court and OCAHO)

MIDWESTERN STATES
Chicago, IL
Detroit, MI
Bloomington, MN
Kansas City, MO
Omaha, NE
Cleveland, OH

NORTHEASTERN STATES
Boston, MA
Buffalo, NY
Hartford, CT
New York, NY

SOUTHERN AND SOUTHEASTERN STATES
Orlando, FL
Miami, FL (Immigration Court and Detention Center locations)
Atlanta, GA
Oakdale, LA
Charlotte, NC
Memphis, TN

SOUTHWESTERN STATES
Eloy, AZ
Phoenix, AZ
Dallas, TX
El Paso, TX
Harlingen, TX
Houston, TX (Immigration Court and Detention Center locations)
San Antonio, TX

WESTERN AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN STATES
Imperial, CA
Lancaster, CA
Los Angeles, CA
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
San Pedro, CA
Denver, CO
Las Vegas, NV
Salt Lake City, UT
Seattle, WA


Well then... I must backtrack a little bit on my backtracking before haha. San Pedro doesn't have an immigration court and Lancaster is closing this month. So right off the bat this list is not 100% accurate. I would also be surprised if they are hiring for Philly because there's a first year JLC there right now and they only have 4 judges... but maybe they will. Despite all this, the list seems to be largely consistent with my educated guesses from before. Tucson and Florence only have 2 judges, so even though they each have an AA right now (a second year clerk) perhaps HQ feels like those clerks would be better placed elsewhere. It's also puzzling why they would put a clerk in Imperial when there's only one IJ there... But Salt Lake City has a clerk right now and there's only one IJ there. There is no way they would have two clerks at a court with only one judge. There is just no way that would make any sense at all. In sum, this is not the final list...
Last edited by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:It did ask by region, but the regions listed cities. Several cities were notably absent. From what I know from my work with EOIR, the geographic locations preferences in the application was a new process this year and was hoped to assist the agency in its placing. I can see no other reason why certain cities would be left off the list unless it was because there would not be a position opening up this round. In previous years EOIR has given a location preference sheet at the interview, and the interview information says they will do so again this year. Do we know yet if anyone has received such a sheet at an EOIR interview this year?


Ah then perhaps I stand corrected. I was speaking to the process when I went through it in the fall of 2010. I have commented a lot in this thread based on my knowledge, but I don't know what processes HQ is using this year and all the info I have offered has been an educated guess. I already had guessed Tacoma wouldn't have an opening. If they aren't hiring for East Mesa it wouldn't surprise me because it's a very small court. However, I would be surprised if they left Tacoma and Florence without clerks, but it's possible.

The interviews started yesterday with EOIR, so it would be interesting to hear what they are doing this year.


No, that makes complete sense. And thank you for your insight. I know I definitely appreciate it. I applied for SLIP last year, but this is my first application for the HP.

I have heard that there are quite a few differences in the process this year. Regarding locations, the AZ ones surprise me. I could see only listing Seattle instead of Seattle and Tacoma (since they are so close), but I would normally think that Florence would be listed separately as Phoenix and Eloy are both listed. Tucson and Florence are not listed though.

Here is the list as it was given to us for ranking:


Well then... I must backtrack on my backtracking before haha. San Pedro doesn't have an immigration court and Lancaster is closing this month. So right off the bat this list is not 100% accurate. I would also be surprised if they are hiring for Philly because there's a first year JLC there right now and they only have 4 judges... but maybe they will. Despite all this, the list seems to be largely consistent with my educated guesses from before.


Oh geez. And I completely made my court preference matrix in excel based on that list. Oh well. That's what I get for thinkin' too hard, I guess. Do you know if any of these are probably not available this year: Buffalo, Detroit, Bloomington, Boston, and Baltimore?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:55 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Well then... I must backtrack a little bit on my backtracking before haha. San Pedro doesn't have an immigration court and Lancaster is closing this month. So right off the bat this list is not 100% accurate. I would also be surprised if they are hiring for Philly because there's a first year JLC there right now and they only have 4 judges... but maybe they will. Despite all this, the list seems to be largely consistent with my educated guesses from before. Tucson and Florence only have 2 judges, so even though they each have an AA right now (a second year clerk) perhaps HQ feels like those clerks would be better placed elsewhere. It's also puzzling why they would put a clerk in Imperial when there's only one IJ there... But Salt Lake City has a clerk right now and there's only one IJ there. There is no way they would have two clerks at a court with only one judge. There is just no way that would make any sense at all. In sum, this is not the final list...

They also probably made the list before making decisions about funnel offers for SLIP people, so that would affect final options, too.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:58 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Oh geez. And I completely made my court preference matrix in excel based on that list. Oh well. That's what I get for thinkin' too hard, I guess. Do you know if any of these are probably not available this year: Buffalo, Detroit, Bloomington, Boston, and Baltimore?


Sorry I edited my above response - I added:
Tucson and Florence only have 2 judges, so even though they each have an AA right now (a second year clerk) perhaps HQ feels like those clerks would be better placed elsewhere. It's also puzzling why they would put a clerk in Imperial when there's only one IJ there... But Salt Lake City has a clerk right now and there's only one IJ there. There is no way they would have two clerks at a court with only one judge. There is just no way that would make any sense at all. In sum, this is not the final list...

I can tell you:
Detroit has 4 judges and 1 current first year clerk.
Bloomington has 3 judges and 2 second year clerks. (they will definitely need at least one new person)
Boston has 6 judges and 2 first year clerks.
Baltimore has 5 judges and has 1 first year clerk.

You can raise your own conclusions with those numbers. I have only given my opinion on Bloomington. You will get the final list in your interview, and even then it may be subject to change based on openings/closings/etc. This isn't an exact science.

Stop updating your excel matrix! Also I think I am done guessing here about everything. I've given you a lot of info and everything I'm saying is just educated guesses.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:58 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Well then... I must backtrack a little bit on my backtracking before haha. San Pedro doesn't have an immigration court and Lancaster is closing this month. So right off the bat this list is not 100% accurate. I would also be surprised if they are hiring for Philly because there's a first year JLC there right now and they only have 4 judges... but maybe they will. Despite all this, the list seems to be largely consistent with my educated guesses from before. Tucson and Florence only have 2 judges, so even though they each have an AA right now (a second year clerk) perhaps HQ feels like those clerks would be better placed elsewhere. It's also puzzling why they would put a clerk in Imperial when there's only one IJ there... But Salt Lake City has a clerk right now and there's only one IJ there. There is no way they would have two clerks at a court with only one judge. There is just no way that would make any sense at all. In sum, this is not the final list...


They also probably made the list before making decisions about funnel offers for SLIP people, so that would affect final options, too.


yup.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:59 pm

.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:10 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Oh geez. And I completely made my court preference matrix in excel based on that list. Oh well. That's what I get for thinkin' too hard, I guess. Do you know if any of these are probably not available this year: Buffalo, Detroit, Bloomington, Boston, and Baltimore?


Sorry I edited my above response - I added:
Tucson and Florence only have 2 judges, so even though they each have an AA right now (a second year clerk) perhaps HQ feels like those clerks would be better placed elsewhere. It's also puzzling why they would put a clerk in Imperial when there's only one IJ there... But Salt Lake City has a clerk right now and there's only one IJ there. There is no way they would have two clerks at a court with only one judge. There is just no way that would make any sense at all. In sum, this is not the final list...

I can tell you:
Detroit has 4 judges and 1 current first year clerk.
Bloomington has 3 judges and 2 second year clerks. (they will definitely need at least one new person)
Boston has 6 judges and 2 first year clerks.
Baltimore has 5 judges and has 1 first year clerk.

You can raise your own conclusions with those numbers. I have only given my opinion on Bloomington. You will get the final list in your interview, and even then it may be subject to change based on openings/closings/etc. This isn't an exact science.

Stop updating your excel matrix! Also I think I am done guessing here about everything. I've given you a lot of info and everything I'm saying is just educated guesses.


Thank you so much for all the information. It is definitely appreciated.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:57 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Thank you so much for all the information. It is definitely appreciated.


You're welcome :D I didn't mean to come off harsh! I understand why you'd be so curious but you should relax - it'll all work out. Placement for JLCs can be kind of a crapshoot. You just have to voice your preferences and hope for the best.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:01 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:This is great insight. I would guess that hiring is up this year, b/c hiring is way up at DHS to ramp up for Deferred Action. I suspect that hiring in EOIR will surge perhaps in a related fashion given the potential caseloads that could result from DA applicants. On a policy note, advocacy orgs are trying to get DHS to commit to not referring DA cases to ICE, and ergo IC, but I don't know what the status of that is. DA referrals could push the IC caseload up dramatically, so is this why hiring is up? Inquiring minds want to know.


Deferred action is not processed in immigration court and so that has nothing to do with the increase in hiring. Deferred action applications are processed through DHS, not the DOJ. The increase in hiring must be solely due to an increase in the allocated budget for the JLC program.

If anything, DA would slightly decrease cases in immigration court since those cases will likely be terminated or administratively closed due to their eligibility for DA. The current caseload in immigration courts is already astronomical, with cases being set for hearing dates years in the future, and so this wouldn't even begin to put a dent in affecting the court's caseload. I would be willing to bet that most folks who are eligible for DA are not in proceedings, as they are the epitome of low-priority cases for DHS enforcement.

And re: ICE putting folks who are eligible for DA in proceedings in immigration court... that makes no sense and I cannot see why DHS would expend the effort to do so when the cases are just going to get administratively closed or terminated. It would be one arm of DHS working against the efforts of another. If non-profits are reminding DHS of this, then it's only in DHS' best interest to listen to them, but probably this is a message that's already being reinforced in DHS.



I did not say DA is adjudicated by DOJ...I said that the docket could increase b/c of USCIS (DHS) referrals to ICE. Here's how it works...DA app applies for DA but is unqualified b/c of criminal record which app doesn't disclose to attorney (you'd be surprised how many people do this). USCIS receives app, sees criminal record and refers app to ICE for removal. ICE issues notice to appear (NTA), which then means app has a date with an IJ (EOIR)to face removal proceedings. This simple scenario multiplied over a thousand times, instantly increases the IJ's docket. Backlog notwithstanding, this will create more work for IJs in the not-to-distant future. There are other ways DA apps would end up in front of an IJ, but this is only one. Bottom line, DA can increase workload. I happen to disagree with your analysis.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:46 am

Anonymous User wrote:I did not say DA is adjudicated by DOJ...I said that the docket could increase b/c of USCIS (DHS) referrals to ICE. Here's how it works...DA app applies for DA but is unqualified b/c of criminal record which app doesn't disclose to attorney (you'd be surprised how many people do this). USCIS receives app, sees criminal record and refers app to ICE for removal. ICE issues notice to appear (NTA), which then means app has a date with an IJ (EOIR)to face removal proceedings. This simple scenario multiplied over a thousand times, instantly increases the IJ's docket. Backlog notwithstanding, this will create more work for IJs in the not-to-distant future. There are other ways DA apps would end up in front of an IJ, but this is only one. Bottom line, DA can increase workload. I happen to disagree with your analysis.


IJs at most courts are already hearing as many cases as they can stuff in a day, and the most backlogged courts are setting individuals eight years out. Increasing the backlog does not mean that workload increases, it just pushes hearings that much farther out into the future. If you already have every minute of your time booked up through 2019, you're not going to be unduly stressed by suddenly having all of 2020 booked too.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:57 am

My interview with EOIR is this week. I will let everyone know which cities are listed as available afterwards.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ Honors 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:30 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I did not say DA is adjudicated by DOJ...I said that the docket could increase b/c of USCIS (DHS) referrals to ICE. Here's how it works...DA app applies for DA but is unqualified b/c of criminal record which app doesn't disclose to attorney (you'd be surprised how many people do this). USCIS receives app, sees criminal record and refers app to ICE for removal. ICE issues notice to appear (NTA), which then means app has a date with an IJ (EOIR)to face removal proceedings. This simple scenario multiplied over a thousand times, instantly increases the IJ's docket. Backlog notwithstanding, this will create more work for IJs in the not-to-distant future. There are other ways DA apps would end up in front of an IJ, but this is only one. Bottom line, DA can increase workload. I happen to disagree with your analysis.


IJs at most courts are already hearing as many cases as they can stuff in a day, and the most backlogged courts are setting individuals eight years out. Increasing the backlog does not mean that workload increases, it just pushes hearings that much farther out into the future. If you already have every minute of your time booked up through 2019, you're not going to be unduly stressed by suddenly having all of 2020 booked too.



We disagree about the timing of scheduling hearings. In fact, once an NTA is issued, the initial hearing which is very brief, to go over the charges and set a date for a hearing on the merits, is scheduled within a year's time in most cases, sometimes sooner. Thus, relevant for IJs within the next two years at least. It's not the case that someone will be issued an NTA and an initial hearing will be scheduled for 8 years out. Doesn't happen, sorry.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.