U Visa Continuances in Removal Proceedings: Matter of Sanchez Sosa

Sanchez Sosa contemplates more than a bare assertion that Form I-918 was filed. The continuance record should address the qualifying criminal activity, helpfulness or cooperation, substantial physical or mental abuse, admissibility or Form I-192 issues, and the certification or other evidence supporting the petition. The Immigration Judge does not decide U eligibility, but enough of the USCIS record should be presented to show why the petition is a serious collateral claim rather than a speculative filing made only to delay proceedings.

Sanchez Sosa recognizes that USCIS has jurisdiction over Form I-918 while EOIR controls the removal case. A pending U petition can constitute good cause to continue when the record shows prima facie eligibility and the requested delay is reasonably connected to USCIS adjudication.

A useful motion identifies the qualifying criminal activity, substantial abuse, helpfulness requirement, law-enforcement certification or other required evidence, admissibility strategy, filing date, receipt, and any USCIS action. The request should explain what approval, bona fide determination, or waiting-list action would mean for the removal case.

Attach the Form I-918 receipt, Supplement B certification if applicable, personal declaration, police or prosecution records, medical or counseling evidence, USCIS notices, I-192 filing if needed, and proof of derivative relationships. The court should not be asked to assume prima facie eligibility from a receipt alone.

The U-visa backlog does not guarantee an indefinite continuance. Later precedent, including L-A-B-R- and L-N-Y-, requires attention to uncertainty, timing, and the material effect of the benefit. A weak petition or an undefined waiting period may reduce the weight of the request.

USCIS decides the U petition; the Immigration Judge does not. ICE may take positions regarding continuance, termination, or a stay, but those enforcement choices are separate from USCIS’s adjudication of U eligibility.

DHS may dispute prima facie eligibility, the certification, admissibility, the significance of waiting-list placement, or the length of delay. The response should identify objective evidence supporting each U element and a realistic explanation of the procedural milestone being awaited.

Update the Immigration Court whenever USCIS issues a bona fide determination, waiting-list notice, RFE, approval, or denial. A stale motion based only on the original filing date can become materially weaker if the court lacks current information.

The ruling should address prima facie U eligibility, DHS’s position, the specific reason for delay, procedural history, and the effect that USCIS action would have on the removal case. If the judge relies on backlog uncertainty, the decision should explain how that factor is weighed.

An appellate challenge should identify whether Sanchez Sosa was applied consistently with L-A-B-R- and L-N-Y-. The strongest record shows both concrete U-visa eligibility and a meaningful connection between USCIS action and the respondent’s ability to resolve or pause removal proceedings.

A receipt notice, bona fide determination, waiting-list placement, RFE, and final approval are not equivalent. Each says something different about where the petition stands and how likely near-term relief may be. Counsel should update EOIR when USCIS issues a material notice and explain what the notice actually means. The procedural value of a continuance can increase or decrease as the U case advances, and the court should not be asked to evaluate the motion using stale information.

The continuance request should be kept separate from any need for an administrative stay or other enforcement protection. USCIS jurisdiction over Form I-918 does not automatically suspend EOIR proceedings or ICE execution of a final order. If the respondent faces an immediate enforcement event, pursue the appropriate DHS channel rather than assuming the Immigration Judge’s scheduling decision controls ICE. Clear separation of these authorities avoids dangerous gaps between the collateral petition and the removal case.

Sanchez Sosa identifies DHS’s position as an important consideration, especially where DHS does not oppose a continuance based on a prima facie U claim. Opposition, however, should be answered on the merits rather than treated as dispositive. If DHS challenges the certification, admissibility, timing, or practical effect of the U petition, respond with the USCIS filing record and the specific legal consequence of approval. The court should have a developed record from both parties before weighing good cause.

A useful motion explains all three possible USCIS outcomes. Approval may support termination, reopening, or another procedural step depending on posture. Denial may eliminate the reason for additional delay or create a separate USCIS review question. Continued pendency may require reassessing whether a finite continuance remains appropriate. By explaining these branches in advance, counsel shows the Immigration Judge that the request is part of a defined litigation plan rather than an indefinite effort to keep the case open.

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.