U.S. immigration judges are being pushed to limit delays in removal cases, according to a September 4, 2026, Guardian report describing recent mandatory training on continuances. These procedural delays can give people additional time to find lawyers, prepare their cases, or wait for separate immigration applications to be decided.
Immigration judges may grant a continuance only for “good cause shown” under federal regulations. Justice Department precedent in Matter of L-A-B-R- says judges considering a delay for a separate immigration benefit should focus primarily on whether that benefit is likely to be granted and whether it would materially affect the removal case.
Judges may also consider factors such as diligence, previous continuances, timing, and administrative efficiency.
That framework can matter when a person in removal proceedings is waiting for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or another agency to complete a separate case. A continuance is possible, but it is not automatic, even when another immigration process is already underway.
In March 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals applied those principles in Matter of Pinzon Rozo. The case involved a respondent with an approved petition for special immigrant juvenile classification who sought to keep removal proceedings on hold until a visa became available.
The Board ruled that the immigration judge had erred by granting the continuance because the respondent’s priority date was not expected to become current for an uncertain and potentially lengthy period. An approved immigration petition did not justify an indefinite delay under the circumstances presented in that case.
The Guardian reported that recent Justice Department training urged immigration judges to scrutinize continuance requests closely and move cases toward completion. According to the report, the presentation addressed people waiting for immigration benefits and also discussed how much additional time respondents should receive to find legal representation.
The specific training materials described by the Guardian do not appear to have been publicly posted by the Justice Department. However, the broader legal framework is reflected in existing Justice Department precedent requiring case-specific findings of good cause rather than automatically granting lengthy delays.
For international students and professionals, the issue is most relevant to anyone who enters removal proceedings while a separate immigration petition or application remains pending. A pending petition may not stop removal proceedings. Whether a case is continued can depend on the type of benefit involved, its likelihood of affecting the removal case, the expected timeline, and other circumstances considered by the immigration judge.