For more than a decade, crime victims in removal proceedings could point to Matter of Sanchez Sosa (BIA 2012) to ask an Immigration Judge to pause the case while USCIS decided a U visa petition. On October 16, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals overruled that precedent in Matter of L. Ramirez, 30 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2026).
Table of Contents
The holdings
- There is no presumption in favor of a continuance for people who have filed a prima facie approvable U visa petition with USCIS.
- In deciding whether there is good cause for a continuance based on a pending visa petition or future visa availability, Immigration Judges apply the balancing test of Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018), keeping in mind the importance of the secondary factors and that good cause does not exist if visa availability is remote.
- People are not entitled to delay completion of removal proceedings pending availability of a visa, as held in Matter of Quintero (BIA 1982).
The facts
DHS began proceedings against the respondent, a citizen of Mexico, in June 2017. In September 2017 he filed a U visa petition with a waiver application, based on an armed robbery in February 2016. The Immigration Judge granted continuances, then warned that the case could not be continued indefinitely, and in January 2020 denied a further continuance and ordered removal. More than six years later, the respondent had still not shown that USCIS had decided the petition.
The balancing test
Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, a judge may grant a continuance for good cause shown. L-A-B-R- focuses on two primary factors, the likelihood of the collateral relief and whether it would materially affect the outcome, and on secondary factors: diligence, DHS's position, the length of the continuance requested and the procedural history. In L. Ramirez the primary factors favored the respondent, but the secondary factors did not. He gave no timeframe for his request, he waited a year and a half after the crime to file, and DHS opposed.
Why the Board changed course
The Board explained that when Sanchez Sosa was decided, USCIS was expected to adjudicate U visa requests in about a year. Because of the statutory cap and very high demand, eligible petitioners now wait many years for a visa. A presumption in favor of a continuance, the Board concluded, conflicts with L-A-B-R- and with Quintero when the wait is long or indefinite.
What petitioners can do
- File early and document diligence; delay between the crime and the filing counted against the respondent.
- Request a specific, reasonable continuance period tied to a concrete USCIS step.
- Track USCIS action on the petition; the Form I-918 page explains the filing and certification requirements, also covered in our Supplement B guide.
- Consider other docket tools, such as those described in administrative closure, knowing the Board's recent decisions limit them too.
- Review eligibility basics in our U visa eligibility guide.
Federal court options
When USCIS has not acted at all, some petitioners turn to federal court to obtain a decision on a preliminary step. Our companion article on U visa delays and federal court options explains the approach, and a U visa mandamus case study shows one example.
Related Guides on This Site
See also Strategic Uses of Administrative Closure in Family Based Immigration Petitions. See also How Might Changes in Immigration Policies or Law Enforcement Practices Impact the U Visa Application Process in 2024. See also A Deep Dive Into Contempt of Court for Injunction Violations.
Disclosure: Criminal Immigration Law collaborates with the law firm that publishes Mandamus.com and N600K.com; some articles link to their guides. General information only, not legal advice.
Every day you wait can change the outcome of your case.
Talk to a criminal immigration attorney today — no cost, no obligation.