Interview scorecard template

Case Specialist (Immigration Attorney) interview scorecard

Evaluate Case Specialist (Immigration Attorney) candidates across 4 weighted areas: outcomes that landed, stakeholder facilitation, regulatory and policy command, and evidence and reporting. Outcomes that landed leads at 30%, so check case outcomes they personally carried: I-130, I-485, H-1B, asylum or U visa approvals, RFE overcome rates, EOIR hearing results, and volume. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
public sector communityasylum casescase managementimmigration lawuscis filings
TL;DR
For outcomes that landed, look for evidence the candidate cites specific approvals and denials by form type with numbers, timelines, and what they changed after an adverse decision. For stakeholder facilitation, look for evidence the candidate describes managing a traumatized asylum client through declaration drafting while negotiating continuances with opposing counsel professionally. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Outcomes that landed

30% weight

Check case outcomes they personally carried: I-130, I-485, H-1B, asylum or U visa approvals, RFE overcome rates, EOIR hearing results, and volume handled per month.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names programmes or initiatives that were adopted, funded, or delivered
  • States their own role rather than the department's
  • Gives measured reach or impact
  • Distinguishes work that landed from work that stalled, and explains why

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No delivered work; describes intent and process only.

2
Needs Improvement

Involved in initiatives but cannot say what resulted or what they owned.

3
Satisfactory

Real delivery with adequate ownership; impact described loosely.

4
Very Good

Named outcomes with clear personal scope and some measures.

5
Excellent

Cites specific approvals and denials by form type with numbers, timelines, and what they changed after an adverse decision.

02
Evaluation factor

Stakeholder facilitation

25% weight

Probe how they handle distressed clients through interpreters, coordinate with consulates, DHS trial attorneys, community nonprofits, and supervising counsel on shared caseloads.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings a real contested case, not a philosophy of engagement
  • Names the competing interests and the resolution method
  • Uses concrete engagement formats and can point to input that changed a decision
  • Treats every group as legitimate

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Diplomacy-speak with no case attached, or contempt for one group.

2
Needs Improvement

Recalls conflict but no method; engagement is a box to check.

3
Satisfactory

Real case and workable approach; resolution thin on specifics.

4
Very Good

Names the tension and method; cites engagement that shaped the outcome.

5
Excellent

Describes managing a traumatized asylum client through declaration drafting while negotiating continuances with opposing counsel professionally.

03
Evaluation factor

Regulatory and policy command

25% weight

Test working knowledge of INA sections, 8 CFR, USCIS Policy Manual updates, priority date movement in the Visa Bulletin, and current parole or TPS designations.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names the statutes, funding rules, and processes they have worked under
  • Explains how those requirements sequenced their work
  • Owns the compliance thinking rather than deferring it entirely
  • Knows where the discretion sits

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Outsources all regulatory thinking; cannot name a framework.

2
Needs Improvement

Generalities about compliance; no sequencing or named rules.

3
Satisfactory

Knows the main frameworks; sequencing described loosely.

4
Very Good

Names relevant frameworks and how they shaped a timeline.

5
Excellent

Explains recent policy shifts such as TPS terminations or fee rule changes and how they re-strategized affected filings.

04
Evaluation factor

Evidence and reporting

20% weight

Assess how they track deadlines and evidence: case management systems (Docketwise, INSZoom, Clio), RFE response packets, biometrics logs, and file audits before submission.

Evidence to listen for

  • Uses data to choose between options, not to justify a decision already made
  • Names the sources and methods behind their numbers
  • Reports to funders, councils, or the public in terms those audiences can use
  • Tracks whether the intervention worked

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No use of evidence; decisions are assertion.

2
Needs Improvement

Cites data but cannot explain its source or limits.

3
Satisfactory

Uses evidence competently; evaluation after the fact is thin.

4
Very Good

Evidence drives choices and is reported clearly to lay audiences.

5
Excellent

Shows a disciplined docketing habit with zero missed deadlines and evidence indexes that survive supervisory and government review.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Case Specialist (Immigration Attorney)

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    What is your experience working on immigration cases?

  2. 02

    Which case types have you handled from intake through to decision?

  3. 03

    Which jurisdictions' immigration rules are you familiar with?

  4. 04

    Can you describe your case management process?

  5. 05

    How do you ensure paperwork is accurate and submitted on time?

See the complete Case Specialist (Immigration Attorney) question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards