April 26, 2009

Factors that an Immigration Judge must consider when deciding whether to grant a continuance in a case

Requesting continuances of cases in Immigration Court can be tricky. You never know if it will be granted because it most often depends on the judge's discretion. There is very little case law on when continuances should be granted. Fortunately, a few days ago, the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA" or "Board") decided a case in which it has provided some guidance on when a continuance may be granted.

In Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec.785 (BIA 2009), the respondent (Mr. Hashmi) was married to an American citizen who had filed a visa petition (Form I-130) on his behalf. The Immigration Judge permitted several continuances in the proceedings to allow time for USCIS to adjudicate the visa petition. If the visa petition would have been approved, Mr. Hashmi would have been immediately eligible for adjustment of status (green card). Mr. Hashmi managed to obtain four continuances but the Judge denied the fifth request. The Judge denied it because he stated that he was forced to meet case completion goals and he needed to make a decision because the case had already been pending for 18 months in the Immigration Court. Mr. Hashmi appealed and after the Board of Immigration Appeals initially denied it, he was finally was successful at the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded back to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Upon the case's return to the Board, the BIA considered what factors would constitute good cause for the grant of a continuance in a situation in which the person in removal proceedings (known as the "respondent") has a visa petition pending and would be immediately eligible for adjustment of status (green card) but is waiting for USCIS to adjudicate the visa petition. The BIA decided that there are five factors that a Judge must consider before ruling on a Motion to Continue in this situation. These factors are:


  1. the Department of Homeland Security's response to the Motion to Continue;

  2. whether the visa petition is prima facie approvable;

  3. the respondent's statutory eligibility for adjustment of status;

  4. whether the respondent's application for adjustment of status merits a favorable exercise of discretion;

  5. the reason for the continuance and any other relevant procedural factors.

The Board stressed that these factors were "illustrative, not exhaustive." (Id., at 790)

Finally, the BIA found that a judge's "case completion goals" "is not a proper factor in deciding a continuance request." (Id. at 794)

Overall this is a very helpful case because it provides us with some guidance in a situation in which we had none before. It will now hopefully be easier to obtain continuances in cases when, through no fault of their own, respondents have been waiting for USICS to adjudicate their petitions.