Employment-Based Continuances in Removal Proceedings: Matter of Rajah

Rajah does not treat PERM recruitment, labor certification, Form I-140 adjudication, and visa-number availability as interchangeable. Counsel should identify the precise stage and what remains before the respondent can seek adjustment. A certified labor application followed by a filed or approved I-140 is materially different from an employer that has only begun recruitment. The court needs enough detail to evaluate whether the employment process is mature enough to affect the removal case within a realistic time frame.

Rajah applies the Hashmi-style factors to employment-based cases. An unopposed request to await adjudication of a pending employment-based visa petition should generally receive favorable consideration when approval would make the respondent prima facie eligible for adjustment, while a labor certification standing alone is ordinarily too preliminary.

The critical question is where the case stands in the employment process. A certified PERM with a timely filed I-140, an approved I-140 with a current priority date, and a respondent otherwise eligible to adjust present very different continuance records from a newly filed recruitment or labor-certification matter.

Provide the labor certification, I-140 receipt or approval, priority date, Visa Bulletin, evidence of the offered position, employer’s continued intent, any portability facts, and adjustment eligibility evidence. If §245(i) grandfathering or another exception is necessary, document that issue rather than assuming the employment petition resolves it.

Employment sponsorship does not cure every adjustment problem. Unauthorized employment, status violations, entry without inspection, inadmissibility, visa retrogression, employer withdrawal, or a weak underlying petition can materially reduce the likelihood that collateral processing will affect the removal case.

DOL may control labor certification, USCIS adjudicates Form I-140, and EOIR may control the removal case and, depending on jurisdiction, the I-485. The motion should map these stages so the Immigration Judge can see which event is pending and why it matters.

DHS may emphasize that the labor market process is incomplete, the employer petition is speculative, the visa number is unavailable, or the respondent cannot adjust even if the I-140 is approved. The response should identify the precise statutory route to adjustment and any exception needed.

Ask only for the time tied to a concrete pending event. If premium processing is available and strategically appropriate, its use may strengthen the showing of diligence. Updated employer letters and Visa Bulletin evidence should be filed before the court rules.

The decision should distinguish labor-certification pendency from visa-petition pendency, identify the respondent’s place in the employment process, and analyze adjustment eligibility and visa availability rather than treating all employment sponsorship as equally speculative.

On review, focus on whether the Immigration Judge accurately identified the employment stage and applied the modern L-A-B-R- framework to Rajah’s employment-specific considerations. A mistaken assumption about an I-140, priority date, or §245(i) eligibility can be outcome determinative.

An employment case can lose practical value if the sponsoring employer no longer intends to employ the respondent, the offered position disappears, or the petition is withdrawn. Updated employer letters, corporate records where appropriate, and confirmation of the offered job can help establish that the collateral process remains live. If portability under INA §204(j) or another provision is part of the theory, explain why its prerequisites are met. Do not ask the Immigration Judge to infer continuing sponsorship from an old approval notice alone.

An approved I-140 may still leave a respondent years away from an immigrant visa. The motion should provide the current priority date and Visa Bulletin and explain whether the category is current, retrogressed, or subject to a lengthy queue. The 2026 decision in Matter of Pinzon Rozo reinforces the importance of uncertainty and duration when a respondent seeks to wait for visa availability. Although Pinzon Rozo involved SIJ classification, its good-cause reasoning underscores why a distant visa horizon matters in other continuance settings as well.

Employment sponsorship does not itself excuse entry without inspection, unauthorized employment, status violations, or other statutory barriers. If the respondent relies on INA §245(i), §245(k), a waiver, or another exception, the motion should identify and document it. The court’s material-effect analysis depends on whether approval of the employment petition would actually lead to relief. A continuance is harder to justify when the respondent has no identified path around an independent adjustment bar.

The duration requested should match the stage of the case. A short period to await premium processing or an already-scheduled USCIS action is easier to evaluate than an open-ended request tied to labor-market steps that have not begun. If the employer can take lawful steps to accelerate a pending adjudication, explain whether those steps were considered. At the next hearing, provide updated USCIS and Visa Bulletin evidence so the court can decide based on the current employment path rather than the record from months earlier.

The requested period should correspond to a concrete event such as a USCIS decision, interview, RFE deadline, visa-availability date, or other measurable step. Open-ended requests invite the court to focus on uncertainty and docket age.