Matter of L. Ramirez Explained: BIA Ends U Visa Continuance Rule

The Board of Immigration Appeals has overruled a 13-year-old precedent decision that protected crime victims with pending U visa petitions from being removed before United States Citizenship and Immigration Services could adjudicate their cases. In Matter of L. Ramirez, 30 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2026), Interim Decision #4260, decided October 16, 2026, the Board eliminated the presumption in favor of continuances for noncitizens with prima facie approvable U visa petitions and held that Immigration Judges must now apply the general Matter of L-A-B-R- balancing test, with explicit emphasis that “good cause does not exist if visa availability is remote.”

Before continuing with the doctrinal analysis, a direct warning for community readers: if you or a family member has filed a U visa petition because you were a victim of a qualifying crime, and you or your family member is currently in removal proceedings, the legal protection that previously allowed you to pause your removal case while USCIS reviewed your U visa petition has been substantially weakened. Talk to an experienced immigration attorney immediately. Case strategy that worked under the old rule may need to be rebuilt under the new standard.

This piece explains what the decision holds, how the new standard operates in practice, what the structural problems with the Board’s reasoning are, and what practitioners and U visa petitioners need to do differently now that the Sanchez Sosa presumption is gone. Matter of L. Ramirez is the twenty-first precedential immigration decision in the ongoing series shifting law in the government’s direction.

What Happened in Matter of L. Ramirez

The respondent is a native and citizen of Mexico. In February 2016, he was the victim of an armed robbery, a qualifying crime for U visa purposes. On September 26, 2017, he filed a petition for a nonimmigrant visa under section 101(a)(15)(U) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U), together with an application for a waiver of inadmissibility, with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Separately, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) commenced removal proceedings against him in June 2017. His initial removal hearing before the Immigration Judge was on October 23, 2018. Through counsel, he conceded his removability (meaning he acknowledged being subject to removal) and requested a continuance to prepare his case. The Immigration Judge granted the continuance request. At the August 2019 hearing, the respondent requested a second continuance to await USCIS adjudication of the U visa petition. The Immigration Judge granted this continuance as well but warned the respondent that further continuances would not likely be granted.

The U visa petition was still pending at the January 7, 2020 hearing. The respondent requested another continuance. The Immigration Judge denied the request and ordered the respondent removed from the United States. The respondent appealed to the Board.

What the BIA Decided

The Board decided three things.

First, the Board overruled Matter of Sanchez Sosa, 25 I&N Dec. 807 (BIA 2012). Under Sanchez Sosa, the Board had held that in the U visa context, there was a rebuttable presumption that a noncitizen who had filed a prima facie approvable application with USCIS would warrant a favorable exercise of discretion for a continuance for a reasonable period of time. That presumption no longer exists.

Second, the Board held that in deciding whether a noncitizen has established good cause for a continuance based on the pendency of a visa petition or future visa availability, Immigration Judges should apply the balancing test from Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018), with explicit emphasis on the importance of the secondary factors and on the proposition that “good cause does not exist if visa availability is remote.”

Third, the Board reaffirmed Matter of Quintero, 18 I&N Dec. 348 (BIA 1982), holding that noncitizens are not entitled to delay completion of their removal proceedings pending availability of a visa.

Applying this framework to the specific facts, the Board acknowledged that the two primary factors in the L-A-B-R- balancing test favored the respondent: he appeared prima facie eligible for a U visa and an inadmissibility waiver, and USCIS approval would materially affect the outcome of his removal proceedings because he would no longer be removable as charged. But the Board concluded that the secondary factors, particularly the open-ended length of the continuance request and the lengthy procedural history, strongly weighed against a continuance.

The L-A-B-R- Balancing Test Explained

Because the decision shifts U visa continuance analysis to the L-A-B-R- framework, understanding how that balancing test operates is now central to U visa practice in removal proceedings.

Matter of L-A-B-R- establishes two primary factors and several secondary factors that Immigration Judges consider when a noncitizen requests a continuance based on a pending collateral matter (such as a visa petition before USCIS).

The two primary factors are: (1) the likelihood that the noncitizen will receive the collateral relief, and (2) whether the relief will materially affect the outcome of the removal proceedings. If a noncitizen can show both a strong likelihood of U visa approval and that approval would resolve the removability charge, the primary factors favor continuance.

The secondary factors are: (1) whether the noncitizen has exercised reasonable diligence in pursuing the collateral relief, (2) DHS’s position on the continuance motion, (3) the length of the requested continuance, and (4) the procedural history of the case.

Under prior Board precedent, specifically Matter of L-N-Y-, 27 I&N Dec. 755 (BIA 2020), the two primary factors are not dispositive when relevant secondary factors weigh against continuance. Matter of L. Ramirez reinforces this and effectively elevates the secondary factors in U visa cases, particularly where visa availability is remote (which is now the default situation for U visas given the statutory cap).

The Wait-Time Catch-22

The most structurally concerning feature of Matter of L. Ramirez is that it uses the length of U visa wait times (which are entirely outside any individual petitioner’s control) as the central reason to deny continuances. This creates a Catch-22 for U visa petitioners that is worth naming directly.

Congress capped the number of U visas available each year at 10,000 in INA § 214(p)(2)(A). Demand for U visas has far exceeded this cap for many years. The Board acknowledges in Matter of L. Ramirez, citing its own earlier decision in Matter of Ibarra-Vega, 29 I&N Dec. 476 (BIA 2026), that U visa petitioners “must now wait many years, even decades, for a visa to become available.” The Board attributes these wait times to the statutory cap rather than to any action by USCIS.

Under the new rule, the longer a U visa petitioner has been waiting through no fault of their own, the harder it becomes for them to obtain a continuance. The decision thus penalizes U visa petitioners for a wait time that is created by a congressional supply problem and is entirely outside the petitioners’ control.

The procedural posture of Matter of L. Ramirez illustrates the problem concretely. The respondent appealed his case in January 2020. The Board decided the appeal on October 16, 2026, more than six years later. During that six-year appellate pendency, the respondent’s U visa petition continued to wait at USCIS. By the time the Board announced its new standard, the respondent’s petition had been pending for over nine years. The Board then used the long pendency as evidence against the respondent, writing that “more than 6 years later, the respondent still has not presented any evidence that USCIS has adjudicated his U visa petition.” The Board itself contributed to the delay by taking six years to decide the appeal, then used the resulting lengthy pendency to justify the new standard.

A second structural issue is the Board’s criticism of the respondent for waiting one and a half years to file his U visa petition after the February 2016 armed robbery. U visa petitions require a law enforcement certification on Form I-918B, which must be signed by a certifying law enforcement agency or official (typically the investigating police department or prosecuting attorney). Obtaining this certification is often difficult. Many law enforcement agencies have delayed or refused to sign certifications. A delay of a year and a half between the qualifying crime and the U visa filing could easily reflect the time required to obtain a certification rather than any lack of diligence by the petitioner. The decision does not engage with this reality.

For practitioners representing U visa clients, the structural critique of the decision will matter in two ways. First, it provides grounds for petitions for review at federal courts of appeals. Second, it shapes how continuance motions should be framed: the strongest motions will affirmatively document that any delays or wait times are not the fault of the petitioner and will characterize the statutory cap as a congressional problem rather than a petitioner problem.

What This Means for Attorneys Handling U Visa Cases

For immigration attorneys handling U visa cases in removal proceedings, Matter of L. Ramirez requires several immediate adjustments to practice.

Treat every continuance motion as requiring affirmative documentation of the full L-A-B-R- balancing test. Under Sanchez Sosa, a prima facie approvable U visa petition was often enough to carry a continuance request. Under L. Ramirez, every continuance motion must affirmatively address each primary and secondary factor, with documentation. This means building out the record on the likelihood of U visa approval (with supporting evidence of the qualifying crime, cooperation, substantial harm, and law enforcement certification), explaining why approval would resolve removability, documenting the client’s diligence throughout, addressing DHS’s position proactively, specifying a defined (not open-ended) continuance length where possible, and placing the procedural history in context.

Reframing the “length of continuance” factor affirmatively has become a central strategic task, because the Board treated the length and open-ended nature of the respondent’s continuance request as the most significant secondary factor weighing against him. Where possible, continuance motions should request a specific, bounded period (for example, a defined number of months) with a plan for what will happen if the U visa has not been adjudicated by the end of that period. Open-ended requests to continue until USCIS adjudication will likely be denied.

Documenting the Form I-918B law enforcement certification timeline is essential, because if any delay in filing the U visa petition can be attributed to the time required to obtain the law enforcement certification, that fact should be documented affirmatively in the continuance motion. The Board faulted the respondent in L. Ramirez for waiting a year and a half to file, without engaging whether that delay was due to certification difficulties, so future motions should preempt the same criticism.

Characterizing the wait-time problem accurately is important to any strong continuance motion, because U visa wait times are not caused by petitioner delay or USCIS inaction. They are caused by a statutory cap set by Congress at 10,000 visas per year while demand runs far higher. Continuance motions should frame the wait-time issue as a congressional supply problem rather than a petitioner-caused delay. Where appropriate, cite Matter of Ibarra-Vega’s acknowledgment that these wait times are not the result of any action or inaction by USCIS.

Considering alternative strategies becomes essential for clients with pending U visa petitions, because where continuances become unavailable, alternative pathways include seeking administrative closure (where available), moving for prosecutorial discretion through DHS, pursuing simultaneous applications for other forms of relief (such as cancellation of removal, asylum, or adjustment of status if available), and preparing for petition for review litigation if the Immigration Judge denies continuance and orders removal.

Preserving the record for federal court review is now a baseline requirement of competent practice, because the L. Ramirez standard will be challenged in federal courts of appeals. Preserving every available argument at the Immigration Judge and Board levels maintains the record for petition for review, and issues not preserved below are generally not reviewable in federal court.

Monitoring for further series developments is also part of competent current practice, because Matter of L. Ramirez joins Matter of Ibarra-Vega as part of a cluster of recent Board decisions reshaping U visa and visa-wait-time analysis. Attorneys should assume that further decisions in this area are coming and should build case strategy with the current direction of precedent in mind.

What This Means for U Visa Petitioners and Their Families

For individuals who have filed U visa petitions and are in removal proceedings, and for family members of those individuals, Matter of L. Ramirez changes the practical outlook significantly.

If you have a pending U visa petition and are in removal proceedings, speak with an experienced immigration attorney immediately. The procedural strategy that worked under the prior rule may not work under the new standard, and your case may require urgent attention to adapt to the new framework.

If you are considering whether to file a U visa petition because you were a victim of a qualifying crime, the U visa remains a valuable form of protection and filing is still worth pursuing. The decision does not change U visa eligibility standards or the substantive protection the U visa provides. What it changes is the procedural pathway for people who are simultaneously in removal proceedings while their U visa petition is pending.

If you are a crime victim who has not yet obtained a law enforcement certification (Form I-918B), work with an attorney to pursue the certification carefully. The certification is required for the U visa petition and often takes time to obtain, but documenting your pursuit of the certification can help later if continuance questions arise.

If your family member has been in removal proceedings for a long time with a pending U visa petition, do not assume the case is lost. The L-A-B-R- balancing test still allows continuances where the showing is strong, and other forms of relief (including prosecutorial discretion, administrative closure, cancellation of removal, or asylum) may be available depending on your family member’s specific circumstances.

What Matter of L. Ramirez Does Not Change

The decision shifts U visa continuance analysis significantly, but its scope has limits worth stating clearly.

The decision does not change U visa substantive eligibility. Victims of qualifying crimes who have been helpful to law enforcement and who have suffered substantial harm remain eligible for U visa protection under section 101(a)(15)(U) of the INA. The U visa itself continues to provide lawful status and a path to lawful permanent residency.

The decision does not foreclose continuances. The L-A-B-R- balancing test remains available, and continuances remain possible where the primary factors favor the noncitizen, the secondary factors are managed carefully, and visa availability can be shown not to be remote. The showing is substantially harder than under the Sanchez Sosa presumption, but it is not foreclosed.

The decision does not change the standard for administrative closure or prosecutorial discretion. These remain available avenues for pausing removal proceedings in appropriate cases, subject to the usual standards and the Attorney General’s current policies on administrative closure.

The decision does not change federal court review. A petition for review at the federal court of appeals for the circuit where the case arose remains available after a Board decision denying continuance, subject to the usual jurisdictional limits.

The decision does not reach forms of relief other than visa petitions and visa availability. Continuances based on other pending matters (for example, pending state court proceedings relevant to criminal history, pending family law matters relevant to custody of qualifying relatives, or pending bona fide marriage adjudications) continue to operate under their own frameworks, informed by the general L-A-B-R- standard.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a U visa?

A U visa is a nonimmigrant visa (meaning a temporary visa) available to victims of certain qualifying crimes who have suffered substantial physical or mental abuse, possess information about the crime, and have been helpful (or are likely to be helpful) in the investigation or prosecution of the crime. Qualifying crimes include domestic violence, sexual assault, armed robbery, kidnapping, trafficking, and others listed in INA § 101(a)(15)(U). The U visa was created by Congress to encourage crime victims to report crimes and cooperate with law enforcement.

Why do U visa petitions take so long?

Congress capped the number of U visas issued each year at 10,000 in INA § 214(p)(2)(A). Demand for U visas has far exceeded this cap for many years, which has created wait times that now run many years and in some cases over a decade. The wait is not caused by USCIS inaction; it is caused by the gap between demand and the congressional supply cap.

What is a continuance in removal proceedings?

A continuance is a pause in removal proceedings granted by the Immigration Judge. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, an Immigration Judge may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown. Continuances are often requested to allow time for a collateral matter (such as a pending visa petition) to be resolved before the Immigration Judge decides the removal case.

What is the L-A-B-R- balancing test?

The L-A-B-R- balancing test is the framework the Attorney General established in Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018), for deciding whether good cause exists for a continuance based on a pending collateral matter. The test has two primary factors (likelihood of collateral relief and whether that relief will materially affect the removal proceedings) and four secondary factors (diligence, DHS’s position, length of continuance, and procedural history).

Does Matter of L. Ramirez apply retroactively?

Precedent decisions of the Board generally apply to all cases pending at the agency level that have not yet reached a final decision. Attorneys with existing U visa continuance motions pending before Immigration Judges or on appeal before the Board should assume the new standard applies to those motions.

Can an Immigration Judge still grant a continuance for a U visa petition?

Yes, but the showing is now harder. Continuances remain possible under the L-A-B-R- balancing test. The strongest motions will affirmatively document each primary and secondary factor, request a specific bounded time period, and preempt criticism of petitioner delay by documenting any outside factors (such as law enforcement certification timelines) that affected the case.

Where can I find Matter of L. Ramirez?

Matter of L. Ramirez, 30 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2026), Interim Decision #4260, is a precedent decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals decided October 16, 2026. It is available here and through the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review website.

Why Novo Legal

Novo Legal Group is a bilingual, community-rooted human rights firm. Every attorney on our team is fluent in English and Spanish. Our litigation team handles U visa petitions, removal defense for crime victims, appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and petitions for review before federal courts of appeals including the Ninth and Tenth Circuits. We approach U visa cases with the understanding that the clients are crime victims who did what public safety requires, and we build continuance strategy around the current precedent cluster with the care that these cases demand. If you or a family member has a pending U visa petition and is in removal proceedings, contact us. We will tell you what we would do given your specific facts.

Related Reading

• Matter of B-S-A-N- Explained: BIA Creates a ‘Safe Countries’ List
• Matter of M-R-I- Explained: Advance Parole Can End Asylum Protection
• Matter of M-S-V- Explained: BIA Tightens Sponsor Standards for Bond
• Matter of Morales Cuxun Explained: Bond Denied Over DUI and DV
• Matter of C-M-H-H- Explained: Remand Doesn’t Mean New Hearing