As of October 20, 2026: The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has ended the presumption that favored continuances in certain U visa cases. In Matter of L. Ramirez, 30 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2026), decided October 16, the Board overruled Matter of Sanchez Sosa, 25 I&N Dec. 807 (BIA 2012). Immigration Judges must now assess U visa continuance requests under the same good-cause framework applied to other visa petitions.
The ruling does not prohibit every continuance involving a pending Form I-918. It does mean that a pending petition, even one that appears prima facie approvable, does not itself establish good cause. Applicants and their advocates should prepare a case-specific record addressing both the likelihood of relief and the practical reasons for the requested delay.
What changed under Matter of L. Ramirez
For 14 years, Sanchez Sosa applied a rebuttable presumption favoring a continuance for a reasonable period when a noncitizen had filed a prima facie approvable U visa petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
L. Ramirez explicitly overruled that standard. There is no presumption in favor of a continuance based on a prima facie approvable U visa petition. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, an Immigration Judge may grant a continuance only for good cause shown.
The BIA directed Immigration Judges to apply the balancing test in Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018). That test considers two primary factors:
- The likelihood that the applicant will receive the collateral relief.
- Whether that relief will materially affect the outcome of the removal proceedings.
Judges must also consider relevant secondary factors:
- Whether the applicant has exercised reasonable diligence in pursuing the relief.
- DHS’s position on the motion.
- The length of the requested continuance.
- The procedural history of the case.
The primary factors do not control when relevant secondary factors weigh against continuing the case. Matter of L-N-Y-, 27 I&N Dec. 755, 758 (BIA 2020). The BIA also reaffirmed that good cause does not exist if visa availability is remote. L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. at 418. Under Matter of Quintero, 18 I&N Dec. 348 (BIA 1982), a respondent is not entitled to postpone completion of removal proceedings until a visa becomes available.
Why the Board changed course: the U visa backlog
When the BIA decided Sanchez Sosa in 2012, USCIS was expected to adjudicate U visa requests in approximately one year. L. Ramirez cites Matter of Ibarra-Vega, 29 I&N Dec. 476, 478–79 (BIA 2026), for that historical expectation and for the substantial increase in wait times since then.
Congress set an annual cap of 10,000 U visas for principal petitioners. The cap appears at INA § 214(p)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(2)(A). Demand now substantially exceeds the authorized supply. The BIA described nearly 250,000 pending petitions; USCIS data for FY 2026, second quarter, shows approximately 461,200 pending I-918 petitions when principals and family members are counted.
These figures are not a direct calculation of an individual applicant’s wait time: the statutory cap applies to principal petitioners, while the larger USCIS figure includes family members. They do show the scale of the backlog. The Board said that eligible petitioners may have to wait many years, even decades, for a visa to become available. It also emphasized that the wait is not caused by USCIS inaction; demand exceeds the number of visas Congress authorized.
The Board further stated that the same continuance standard applies to any visa petition. It established no special rule for U visas or other nonpreference visa categories.
What happened to the respondent in L. Ramirez
The respondent, a Mexican citizen, was the victim of an armed robbery on February 23, 2016. DHS began removal proceedings in June 2017. He filed a U visa petition and an application for a waiver of inadmissibility on September 26, 2017, and conceded removability.
He received continuances for earlier hearings. At an August 2019 hearing, the Immigration Judge granted a continuance over DHS’s opposition. At the January 7, 2020 hearing, the judge denied a further continuance and ordered him removed. More than six years later, the appeal remained unresolved, and the U visa petition still had not been adjudicated.
The BIA acknowledged that the primary factors favored him: the record indicated prima facie eligibility for a U visa and waiver, and approval could have resolved the removability charge. But the secondary factors weighed against another continuance. Most significantly, the respondent requested an unknown and potentially lengthy period without providing a timeframe. He also did not explain why he waited about a year and a half after the crime to file. DHS opposed further delay.
The case illustrates the practical significance of the ruling: a strong showing on the likelihood of approval and its effect on the court case may not be enough if the requested delay is open-ended, diligence is inadequately explained, or DHS opposes the motion.
Practical steps for U visa applicants in removal proceedings
A receipt notice confirms filing. It does not establish that the petition is approvable. Applicants and advocates should build a record that addresses the L-A-B-R- factors directly.
1. Document the merits of the petition
Submit the relevant petition materials, not only a receipt notice. Depending on the case, the record may include:
- The Form I-918 petition and supporting evidence.
- Form I-918, Supplement B, the law enforcement certification.
- Form I-192, if a waiver of inadmissibility is needed.
- Evidence of qualifying criminal activity and the applicant’s helpfulness to law enforcement.
2. Document bona fide review and waiting-list placement
A bona fide determination (BFD) or evidence that USCIS placed the applicant on the waiting list can support the likelihood-of-success analysis. It may also help address whether visa availability is remote, although it does not guarantee a visa or a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(d)(2) and the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 3, Part C.
A BFD-based employment authorization document may be available under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6). However, a work permit and deferred action are not lawful status and do not prevent an Immigration Judge from entering a removal order.
3. Request a defined period and explain diligence
Avoid asking the court to wait indefinitely. Identify a concrete reason and timeframe, such as a pending Supplement B, a certification request, or an anticipated USCIS step. Explain the case’s procedural history and any gap between the crime and filing.
4. Seek DHS’s position in writing before the hearing
DHS’s opposition was an important factor in L. Ramirez. Ask DHS in advance whether it will join or not oppose the motion. Under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.18(c)(3) and 1003.1(l)(3), a jointly filed or unopposed administrative-closure motion must be granted unless the adjudicator identifies unusual, clearly identified, and supported reasons for denial. These provisions concern administrative closure, not continuances, but DHS’s position can matter in either analysis.
5. Pursue any other available relief
Do not rely on the U visa alone if another form of relief may apply. Consider whether the record supports asylum, cancellation of removal, a waiver, or another available application. A respondent who has conceded removability and has no other relief pending may face a more difficult continuance request.
6. Distinguish visa availability from USCIS adjudication delay
The BIA’s reasoning focuses heavily on the remote availability of a capped visa. In the Ninth Circuit, Malilia v. Holder, 632 F.3d 598, 606 (9th Cir. 2011), remains a potential argument when the issue is USCIS adjudication delay rather than cap-driven visa availability. The Ninth Circuit held that a respondent should not have to bear the ultimate cost for USCIS inefficiency when DHS did not oppose a continuance; the Fifth Circuit has disagreed. The distinction between a delayed agency decision and an unavailable visa is important and requires case-specific analysis.
Administrative closure is not an automatic alternative
A continuance is not the only scheduling issue addressed in recent BIA decisions. In Matter of Ibarra-Vega, the Board held that administrative closure over DHS objection is inappropriate when a U visa is not immediately available and availability in the reasonably near future has not been established. It also stated that closure beyond six months is presumptively unreasonable absent unique circumstances, and that adjudicators may not use administrative closure as a de facto form of relief not authorized by statute.
This does not make administrative closure categorically unavailable in every case. But it means applicants should not assume that closure will preserve a case while they wait for a U visa. The facts, DHS’s position, the requested period, and applicable regulations matter.
Protect the record and deadlines
An order of removal can carry serious consequences. The notice in L. Ramirez states that a person who willfully fails to comply with specified departure requirements may face civil penalties of up to $998 per day under INA § 274D, 8 U.S.C. § 1324d, and 8 C.F.R. § 280.53(b)(14). DHS and DOJ finalized a rule on assessing and collecting those penalties, effective October 14, 2026. Reentry after removal can also be a separate criminal offense under INA § 276(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), subject to the statute’s requirements and penalties. These consequences are not automatic in every case. Obtain legal advice promptly before taking action related to a removal order.
Calendar the applicable appeal deadline after any decision. The deadline to appeal an Immigration Judge’s decision to the BIA is generally 30 calendar days; confirm the governing rules and filing requirements for the specific case.
Get case-specific immigration guidance
Matter of L. Ramirez changes how Immigration Judges evaluate U visa continuance requests, but the outcome still depends on the evidence and circumstances in each case. A U visa lawyer or immigration attorney can assess the petition record, alternative relief, DHS’s position, and whether a continuance or administrative-closure motion is legally supportable.
Blasingame Law LLC provides humanitarian immigration and other immigration legal services. To discuss a specific matter, contact Blasingame Law LLC.
This article provides general information, not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law and individual case circumstances vary. Consult a qualified immigration lawyer about your specific situation.
