A pending U-visa petition no longer creates a presumption that removal proceedings should be paused, the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled on October 16, 2026. Immigration judges may still grant continuances, but applicants must establish good cause based on the circumstances of their individual cases.
In Matter of L. Ramirez, the Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA, overruled its 2012 decision in Matter of Sanchez Sosa. Under the earlier standard, a person who filed a prima facie approvable U-visa petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services generally received a rebuttable presumption favoring a reasonable continuance.
That U-visa-specific presumption no longer applies. The BIA held that immigration judges should instead use the general good-cause test established in Matter of L-A-B-R-, a 2018 attorney general decision governing requests to postpone removal proceedings while another agency considers possible immigration relief.
The ruling does not require judges to deny every continuance. It means that filing Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status, or demonstrating apparent eligibility is not sufficient by itself to obtain one.
Immigration judges must principally consider whether the requested immigration benefit is likely to be granted and whether approval would materially affect the removal case. They must also weigh secondary factors, including the applicant’s diligence, the Department of Homeland Security’s position, the requested delay’s length, previous continuances and the case’s procedural history.
In L. Ramirez, the BIA acknowledged that the respondent appeared prima facie eligible for U status and that approval could affect his removability. It nevertheless upheld the denial because the requested delay was open-ended, the case had already been continued and DHS opposed another postponement.
The BIA also pointed to the statutory limit of 10,000 principal U visas per fiscal year and demand that can leave eligible applicants waiting for years. It concluded that good cause does not exist when visa availability is too remote.
A pending petition does not automatically prevent a removal order. Removal proceedings may continue—and potentially conclude—before USCIS adjudicates the petition or a U visa becomes available.
USCIS may separately grant qualifying petitioners deferred action and employment authorization through a bona fide determination or U-visa waiting-list placement. Those benefits are distinct from an immigration judge’s decision on whether to continue a court case and do not restore the former presumption.
For international students and professionals, the ruling’s direct effect is limited to people who are both in removal proceedings and pursuing U nonimmigrant status. It does not change the rules governing F-1 status, curricular practical training, optional practical training or H-1B classification.
Disclaimer: This article provides general immigration information and is not individualized legal advice.