Summary: On October 16, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decided Matter of L. Ramirez, 30 I&N Dec. 157, holding that immigrants in removal proceedings who have filed a prima facie approvable U visa petition are no longer presumed to deserve a continuance. The precedent overrules the Board’s 2012 decision in Matter of Sanchez Sosa.
What happened
The case involved a man from Mexico placed in removal proceedings in June 2017. In September 2017 he filed a U visa petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), based on an armed robbery committed against him in February 2016. The Immigration Judge granted one continuance to wait for USCIS, but in January 2020 denied a further continuance and ordered him removed. He appealed.
A three-member panel led by Chief Appellate Immigration Judge Malphrus dismissed the appeal and announced three rules:
- There is no presumption in favor of a continuance for people with a prima facie approvable U visa petition. Matter of Sanchez Sosa is overruled.
- Immigration Judges must apply the “good cause” balancing test from the Attorney General’s 2018 decision in Matter of L-A-B-R-, keeping in mind the importance of secondary factors and that “good cause does not exist if visa availability is remote.”
- People are not entitled to delay the end of their removal proceedings while waiting for a visa to become available, reaffirming Matter of Quintero (1982).
The Board explained that when Sanchez Sosa was decided, USCIS was generally expected to decide U visa petitions in about a year. Because of the annual statutory cap on U visas and very high demand, the Board said eligible petitioners now wait “many years, even decades.” It also stated that the same continuance standard applies to every type of visa, with no special rule for U visas.
The Board agreed that the main factors favored the respondent: he appeared prima facie eligible, and approval would change the outcome of his case. But it found the secondary factors weighed strongly against more delay: he asked for an open-ended continuance, his petition was still undecided more than six years later, he waited about a year and a half after the crime to file, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opposed the request.
Who is affected
The decision mainly affects people in immigration court who are waiting on a pending U visa petition and who have asked, or may ask, the judge to pause their case. Because the Board said the rule applies to any visa type, it may also affect people who ask for continuances while a family or other visa petition is pending or while they wait for a visa number.
BIA precedent decisions bind Immigration Judges nationwide unless they are changed by the Attorney General or a federal court. Federal courts of appeals may later review how this rule is applied.
What it means
Under this decision, a pending U visa petition does not, by itself, entitle someone to have removal proceedings paused. Judges will weigh each request case by case, giving weight to how long the delay would be, how diligently the person pursued relief, DHS’s position, and the case history. The decision does not change who qualifies for a U visa or the annual cap. It is not yet known how Immigration Judges will apply it to the many U visa cases already pending in court.
Source: Board of Immigration Appeals – Matter of L. RAMIREZ, 30 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2026) (published October 16, 2026)
Wondering how this affects you or your family? Every case is different. Schedule a consultation with Attorney James Betzold, by phone or video, or call (833) 847-2335.
This article is a news summary for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law changes often and every case is different; only a legal consultation with Attorney James Betzold can determine how this news applies to you.