Pending U-Visa Petition No Longer Presumes a Pause in Removal Proceedings

A pending U-visa petition does not protect a person from removal while the petition or a visa number is pending. In Matter of L. Ramirez, 30 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2026), decided October 16, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) eliminated a rule that had favored continuing certain removal cases while U-visa petitions were pending. People pursuing U nonimmigrant status should not assume that filing a petition, or showing that it appears approvable, will keep their immigration court cases open.

Background

U nonimmigrant status is available to certain victims of qualifying criminal activity who have been helpful to law enforcement in investigating or prosecuting the crime. For an overview, see the MurthyDotCom NewsBrief, Employment Authorization Available for Pending U Visa Petitioners. A U-visa petition is filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), but a person in removal proceedings may need to ask an immigration judge separately to postpone the court case while USCIS considers the petition.

What Changed

The BIA overruled Matter of Sanchez Sosa, 25 I&N Dec. 807 (BIA 2012), which had established a rebuttable presumption favoring a reasonable continuance for a person with a prima facie approvable U-visa petition. Under Matter of L. Ramirez, there is no longer a U-visa-specific presumption. The person requesting a continuance must show good cause under the balancing test in Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018).

An immigration judge must principally consider how likely the person is to receive the requested immigration benefit and whether that benefit would materially affect the removal case. The judge also considers the person’s diligence, the government’s position, how long a postponement is requested, and the case’s procedural history. Even where the principal factors favor the person, the other factors may weigh against a continuance. The BIA emphasized that good cause does not exist when visa availability is too remote. It noted that the statutory limit and demand for U visas can leave eligible petitioners waiting many years, even decades, for a visa to become available.

Practical Considerations

The ruling does not mean that every request for a continuance must be denied. It does mean that an apparently approvable U-visa petition, by itself, is not enough to presume that removal proceedings will be postponed. In this case, the BIA upheld the denial of a further, open-ended continuance and dismissed the appeal, even though it found that the principal factors favored the respondent. Removal proceedings may therefore conclude, and a removal order may be entered, before USCIS adjudicates the petition or a visa becomes available.

Some U-visa petitioners may separately receive a bona fide determination employment authorization document and a discretionary grant of deferred action from USCIS. Those benefits are not automatic upon filing a petition, and they should not be confused with an immigration judge’s decision to continue removal proceedings. For background on that separate process, see the MurthyDotCom NewsBrief, USCIS Published FAQs on Bona Fide Determination Process for Pending U Visa Petitioners. Anyone in removal proceedings should obtain individualized advice about the status of the U-visa case, any available protection against removal, and all options before the immigration court.

Conclusion

A pending U-visa case is not a shield against removal. A person facing immigration court proceedings should not rely on the petition alone to delay the case or prevent a removal order. Early consultation with experienced immigration counsel is especially important when a hearing or removal deadline is approaching.

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved