U Visa Continuances and Adjudication Uncertainty: Matter of L-N-Y-

L-N-Y- is important because it rejects the idea that favorable primary factors automatically require more time. Even when a U petition appears viable and could affect removal proceedings, the Immigration Judge may weigh how long the collateral process is likely to take and whether the case has already been continued repeatedly. Counsel should therefore address duration and uncertainty directly. A motion that proves only prima facie U eligibility but says nothing about the expected procedural horizon leaves a central part of the good-cause analysis unanswered.

L-N-Y- applies L-A-B-R- to a U-visa continuance request and emphasizes that the primary factors are important but not dispositive. Immigration Judges may weigh the expected duration and uncertainty of collateral adjudication, prior continuances, case age, diligence, and administrative efficiency.

The motion should reduce uncertainty wherever possible. Identify whether USCIS has issued a bona fide determination, waiting-list placement, RFE, prima facie review, or other milestone, and explain why the requested period is tied to a measurable next step rather than an open-ended backlog.

Use USCIS receipts and notices, current processing information when reliable, correspondence about expedited treatment if any, ICE communications, and evidence of timely responses to every request. A chronology of both EOIR and USCIS activity can show diligence and distinguish unavoidable agency delay from respondent-caused delay.

A strong underlying U claim does not erase procedural concerns. If the likely wait is lengthy and approval would not immediately resolve the case, the Immigration Judge may find that continued delay is not justified. Repeated continuances without new developments can further weaken the request.

USCIS remains the U adjudicator, while the Immigration Judge manages the removal docket. L-N-Y- is therefore about how EOIR evaluates the practical effect of an external USCIS process, not about the Immigration Judge deciding U eligibility conclusively.

DHS may rely on case age, uncertain visa availability, a long queue, or the lack of a near-term USCIS decision. The respondent should answer with concrete milestones, any available DHS or ICE position, and a narrowly tailored request.

Consider whether continuance, administrative closure, termination, or another procedural mechanism actually fits the current posture. L-N-Y- warns against treating a continuance as the default merely because a U filing exists. Matter of Ibarra-Vega, 29 I&N Dec. 476 (BIA 2026), separately holds that administrative closure over DHS opposition is inappropriate when a U visa is not immediately available and the record does not show availability in the reasonably near future.

The Immigration Judge should explain how the likely success and material effect of the U petition compare with uncertainty, requested duration, prior delay, and docket considerations. The balance should be individualized to the record.

On appeal, a respondent should not argue that prima facie eligibility alone required a continuance. The better argument identifies a misweighed or ignored factor, a mistaken view of the USCIS posture, or an unsupported assumption about how long or how little the U process would matter.

The best response to an uncertainty concern is evidence of movement. A bona fide determination, waiting-list decision, RFE response, expedite request, or other USCIS event can make the record more specific than a processing-time estimate alone. If the petition has remained pending without any recent agency action, explain the reason and identify the next expected step. The goal is not to promise a decision date that cannot be known, but to give the court a grounded basis for evaluating whether another interval is justified.

Where statutory visa limits mean that U status is not likely to become available soon, the court may distinguish between waiting for USCIS to adjudicate eligibility and waiting for an actual visa number. Matter of Ibarra-Vega, 29 I&N Dec. 476 (BIA 2026), makes this distinction especially important in the administrative-closure context. It holds that closure over DHS opposition is inappropriate when a U visa is not immediately available and the record does not establish likely availability in the reasonably near future.

A continuance preserves an active hearing schedule; administrative closure takes the case off the active docket. The legal standards and practical consequences are not interchangeable. After Ibarra-Vega, a respondent facing a lengthy U-visa wait should not assume that closure is an easier substitute for a denied continuance. The motion should explain why the particular procedural tool fits the expected duration, DHS’s position, and the effect of USCIS action on the removal case.

A good-cause determination is based on the record at the time the Immigration Judge rules. If USCIS later issues a significant notice, counsel should supplement promptly rather than waiting until the next hearing. Conversely, if a projected milestone does not occur, the respondent should be prepared to explain why. L-N-Y- makes repeated continuances more difficult when uncertainty persists without meaningful developments, so maintaining an accurate procedural chronology is itself part of the litigation strategy.

U cases can involve substantial agency delay. The record should therefore identify the next USCIS milestone rather than using backlog alone as the reason for court delay. Bona fide determinations, waiting-list action, RFEs, and approvals are materially different procedural events.