Family-Based Continuances in Removal Proceedings: Matter of Hashmi

A Hashmi motion should identify the facts that make the family petition facially approvable instead of treating the filing receipt as a proxy for merit. In a marriage case, that can mean addressing relationship chronology, prior marriages, prior petitions, interview history, and any USCIS concern already raised. In another family category, the record should establish the claimed relationship and petitioner status. The point is to give the Immigration Judge a reasoned basis to assess the petition’s likelihood without asking the court to decide the I-130 itself.

Hashmi identified considerations including DHS’s position, whether the underlying I-130 is prima facie approvable, apparent statutory eligibility for adjustment, whether adjustment would merit favorable discretion, and procedural factors. Later authority, especially Matter of L-A-B-R-, places primary weight on the likelihood and material effect of the collateral relief.

The strongest request does more than prove that an I-130 was filed. It shows the qualifying relationship, filing receipt, supporting marriage or family evidence, current visa availability where relevant, adjustment eligibility, and a realistic adjudication path. A continuance is easier to justify when the record shows that USCIS approval would move the respondent directly toward relief before the Immigration Judge.

Include the I-130 receipt or approval, complete petition package when available, proof of the qualifying relationship, USCIS notices, interview scheduling information, the Visa Bulletin if a preference category is involved, and evidence addressing adjustment bars or waivers. If the marriage was entered during proceedings, separately address INA §§204(g) and 245(e).

A pending petition does not create an automatic right to delay proceedings. Weak or facially deficient petitions, unavailable visa numbers, unresolved inadmissibility, repeated unexplained continuances, or a speculative adjustment theory can support denial. Hashmi must now be read through the more structured good-cause analysis in L-A-B-R-.

USCIS ordinarily adjudicates the I-130, while the Immigration Judge may adjudicate adjustment for a non-arriving respondent when the court has jurisdiction. The continuance request therefore links two separate adjudications, and the respondent must explain how the USCIS petition will materially affect the EOIR case.

DHS may argue that the petition is not prima facie approvable, that visa availability is too remote, that adjustment is barred, or that the case has already received enough time. A useful response addresses the exact concern with documentary evidence rather than relying on family equities alone.

File the continuance motion before the merits deadline, identify the expected USCIS event, state how much time is requested, and explain what will occur during that period. If a USCIS interview, RFE response, or appeal is pending, attach the notice and explain why the event meaningfully changes the likelihood of adjudication.

Ask the Immigration Judge to make findings on the petition’s apparent approvability, visa availability, adjustment eligibility, material effect, diligence, procedural history, DHS’s position, and requested duration. A reasoned record is especially important when the continuance is denied.

On appeal, separate disagreement with factual findings from a claim that the wrong legal framework was used. Identify any overlooked evidence showing prima facie petition eligibility, current visa availability, or a direct path to adjustment, and explain why the collateral relief would change the outcome of proceedings.

An immediately available visa number makes the connection between petition approval and adjustment much more concrete. A preference-category case with a distant priority date presents a different good-cause question because approval of the petition may not produce relief before the court for years. Counsel should use the current Visa Bulletin and explain both the filing chart and final-action posture when relevant. If retrogression occurs, update the court rather than relying on an earlier snapshot that no longer describes the respondent’s realistic path to adjustment.

A strong I-130 does not answer whether the respondent can adjust before the Immigration Judge. Admission or parole, INA §245(i), status violations, unauthorized employment, inadmissibility, prior orders, and jurisdiction can each become decisive. The continuance record should identify any waiver or statutory exception that is needed and show that the respondent has a legally coherent route after petition approval. That prevents the request from becoming a delay for a benefit that would not materially change the removal case even if USCIS approved the underlying petition.

If prior continuances were granted, explain what occurred during each interval: filing, biometrics, interview, RFE response, appeal, or another concrete event. A court is more likely to view additional time as justified when the respondent used earlier periods diligently and the case moved forward. Conversely, unexplained inactivity can make even a potentially approvable petition less persuasive. A short table of hearing dates and USCIS milestones can show whether delay reflects agency processing, visa availability, or conduct attributable to the respondent.

The motion should tell the court what will happen if the I-130 is approved, denied, or remains pending at the next date. If approval would allow an immediately available adjustment application before EOIR, say so and identify the anticipated filing. If denial would eliminate the theory, state that as well. Defining the next procedural step makes the requested continuance finite and testable. It also gives the Immigration Judge a clearer basis for selecting the length of the continuance and deciding what documentation must be produced at the next hearing.

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.