Immigration Court Continuances: Good Cause After L-A-B-R- and J-A-F-S-

The regulation authorizes an Immigration Judge to grant a continuance for good cause shown. Matter of L-A-B-R- emphasizes that good cause is a substantive limitation, not an invitation to adjourn for any convenient reason. The moving party should identify the concrete need for additional time and explain how it affects the adjudication.

A motion is stronger when it specifies the requested duration, prior diligence, outstanding action, and expected effect on removability or relief.

When a respondent seeks time for USCIS, a consulate, a criminal court, or another authority to act, L-A-B-R- requires primary attention to the likelihood the collateral relief will be granted and whether it will materially affect the outcome of removal proceedings.

Secondary factors include diligence, DHS’s position, administrative efficiency, prior continuances, timing, and the length requested.

A pending I-130, U visa-related process, post-conviction motion, or other collateral matter should be supported with evidence showing procedural posture and plausible eligibility. A receipt notice alone may prove filing but not necessarily demonstrate likelihood of success.

Include approvals, prima facie determinations, underlying eligibility evidence, court schedules, or other records appropriate to the collateral process.

A continuance is easier to justify when counsel connects the collateral action to a concrete immigration consequence: adjustment eligibility, elimination of a conviction predicate, visa availability, waiver eligibility, or another issue the Immigration Judge must decide.

Do not make the court infer why the outside case matters.

Document when the respondent learned of the collateral option, when counsel was retained, when the application or motion was prepared, and why any delay occurred. Repeated last-minute requests are harder to defend than a request supported by a documented history of active pursuit.

If delay resulted from missing records or agency processing, attach proof.

In Matter of J-A-F-S-, 29 I&N Dec. 195 (BIA 2025), the BIA held that an Immigration Judge generally should not continue an individual hearing based on a speculative assertion that a respondent may qualify for a new form of relief not previously raised. The decision emphasizes timing, concreteness, and preparation.

Late-stage requests should therefore explain specifically what new circumstance arose, what evidence is being gathered, and why the issue could not reasonably have been presented sooner.

Scheduling conflicts, substitution of counsel, preparation needs, and emergencies can support continuance requests depending on the facts, but the motion should explain the conflict and diligence. Immigration courts balance fair opportunity to prepare against docket-management obligations.

File promptly rather than waiting until the hearing unless the event truly arose at the last moment.

When a continuance is sought for a criminal vacatur or sentence modification, provide the filed motion, legal basis, court date, expected timeframe, and explanation of the immigration consequence. A speculative possibility that criminal counsel may someday seek relief is materially weaker.

The immigration case should continue to analyze the conviction under its current legal status unless and until relief is granted.

For petition-based adjustment strategies, identify petition status, visa category, priority date, visa availability, admissibility issues, and whether the Immigration Judge or USCIS would have jurisdiction over adjustment. Matter of Hashmi and L-A-B-R- remain important where collateral petition adjudication is central.

A pending petition that could not make relief available may not justify delay.

DHS consent or opposition is a relevant factor, not the sole legal standard. A motion should state whether counsel conferred with DHS and respond to any efficiency, eligibility, or delay concern raised by the government.

Where DHS agrees, identify the shared procedural objective without assuming consent guarantees the ruling.

List prior continuances, who requested them, and why. A respondent should distinguish delays attributable to DHS, the court, counsel changes, emergency circumstances, or genuinely new collateral developments from repeated requests for the same unresolved purpose.

A candid procedural history is more persuasive than ignoring a long docket.

An open-ended continuance makes docket management difficult. Tie the requested period to an identifiable event such as a USCIS interview, state-court hearing, visa-availability date, filing deadline, or expected agency decision.

If the external timeline is uncertain, propose a status date and updated evidence requirement.

Useful exhibits can include agency receipts and approvals, court dockets, criminal motions, medical documentation, counsel declarations, scheduling notices, correspondence, and proof of diligence. The evidence should establish facts relevant to the good-cause factors rather than simply increase page count.

An unsupported assertion of future eligibility is vulnerable under current precedent.

If a continuance is denied and the respondent cannot fairly proceed, state the prejudice and legal basis clearly. Preserve the proffer of evidence or relief the respondent expected to pursue and the timeline requested.

A later appeal is stronger when the record shows what the continuance would have accomplished.

Depending on the issue, a shorter extension, briefing schedule, status conference, administrative closure where legally appropriate, or agreed narrowing of issues may accomplish the objective more efficiently.

Select the procedural tool that matches the reason for delay rather than using continuance as a universal request.

At the beginning of proceedings, a respondent may need time to obtain counsel, collect records, investigate relief, or prepare an application. Later in the case, the same general request receives more scrutiny because the court can ask why the issue was not addressed earlier.

Current precedent therefore makes the procedural stage part of a persuasive good-cause showing.

Serious illness, hospitalization, death, or other emergencies can support a continuance, but the motion should explain who is affected, why attendance or preparation is impossible, and the expected duration. Medical documentation should be tailored to the scheduling issue without unnecessary disclosure.

File as soon as the emergency becomes known.

New counsel inherits existing deadlines and hearing dates unless the Immigration Judge grants relief. A substitution-based continuance should explain when counsel was retained, why prior preparation cannot reasonably be used, what work remains, and the specific additional time requested.

A last-minute substitution arranged primarily to obtain delay is unlikely to present strong good cause.

Country experts, medical evaluators, forensic specialists, and criminal-law experts can require scheduling time. The motion should identify the expert’s role, when the request was made, why the testimony matters, and when the report can realistically be completed.

An unnamed possible expert with no engagement or timeline is less persuasive.

FOIA responses, certified criminal records, state archives, and agency files can take substantial time. Attach request confirmations, follow-up correspondence, and estimated processing dates to show the respondent is not responsible for the delay.

Explain why substitute evidence is inadequate for the issue to be litigated.

A continuance motion should explain what the respondent will be unable to prove or contest if forced to proceed. That might be a missing certified conviction record, unavailable witness, pending petition necessary for adjustment, or unresolved vacatur that directly affects removability.

Specific prejudice also creates a clearer appellate record if the motion is denied.

If only two weeks are needed for a certified record or one month for a scheduled USCIS interview, ask for that period rather than an indefinite delay. Defined requests show preparation and respect for docket management.

Where the event may slip, counsel can explain the contingency and propose a status filing.

If an earlier request was denied or granted for a limited period, a later motion should update the court with new facts, actions taken, and current expected completion. Repeating the original motion without progress can appear dilatory.

Show why continued delay is still justified under the current posture.

A long case history does not mean every delay is attributable to the respondent. Identify continuances caused by DHS evidence production, court rescheduling, unavailable interpreters, agency processing, or administrative closure. That history can matter when the court evaluates diligence and efficiency.

A concise docket chronology showing who requested each adjournment can prevent the current motion from being judged by an inaccurate impression of past delay.

An individual hearing reserves substantial court time, witnesses, interpreters, and DHS preparation. Matter of J-A-F-S- reflects concern with speculative requests made at that stage. If continuance becomes necessary, explain why the issue arose late, what has already been done, and why proceeding would materially prejudice the respondent.

Where possible, file before the hearing rather than presenting the court with an avoidable same-day scheduling problem.

Collateral relief, post-conviction litigation, visa availability, or expert-evidence requests often require documents and legal explanation that cannot be presented adequately in a brief oral request. A written motion creates a clearer record of diligence, likelihood, material effect, and requested duration.

Include a proposed order or specific next date when local practice permits.

Continuances require good cause. L-A-B-R- makes likelihood and material effect central when collateral relief is involved, while Matter of J-A-F-S- warns against speculative, late-stage requests for newly asserted relief.

A strong motion is concrete, documented, timely, and tied to an event that can materially change the removal case.