Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009), is the Board of Immigration Appeals decision that tells immigration judges how to decide whether to continue removal proceedings while a family-based visa petition is still pending with USCIS. It sets out five factors judges must weigh under the “good cause” standard in 8 CFR ยง 1003.29.1eCFR. 8 CFR 1003.29 Hashmi remains in force, but a 2018 Attorney General decision, Matter of L-A-B-R-, added tougher threshold questions that judges now apply on top of the Hashmi analysis. Anyone asking for a continuance today has to satisfy both.
The Five Hashmi Factors
The BIA identified five factors for judges to weigh when a respondent asks to pause removal proceedings while waiting on a pending Form I-130. No single factor decides the outcome, but weakness across several will sink the motion.2U.S. Department of Justice. Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009)
The first factor is DHS’s position on the motion. An unopposed motion carries significant weight. The BIA said that an unopposed continuance request tied to a pending family petition “should generally be granted” if approval would make the respondent eligible for adjustment of status.
The second factor is whether the visa petition is prima facie approvable. The judge is not predicting what USCIS will do. The question is whether the I-130 shows the right qualifying relationship and supporting documents without obvious problems on its face.
Third, the respondent must be statutorily eligible for adjustment of status. Approval of the I-130 only helps if the respondent can actually use it to get a green card. That usually means having been inspected and admitted or paroled, or qualifying for a waiver of any adjustment bars.3U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Volume 7 – Adjustment of Status Part B – 245(a) Adjustment of Status
Fourth, the judge asks whether adjustment would merit a favorable exercise of discretion. Adjustment is discretionary even when someone qualifies for it. Family ties, community involvement, and a clean record weigh in favor. Criminal history and immigration violations weigh against.
The fifth factor is a catch-all for the reason behind the continuance request and any procedural history. A delay caused by USCIS processing times looks better than a delay caused by the respondent sitting on the petition. The number of prior continuances and how long the case has been pending also enter here.
How L-A-B-R- Changed the Analysis
In 2018, Attorney General Sessions issued Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405 (AG 2018). Because Attorney General decisions outrank BIA decisions, L-A-B-R- reshaped how the Hashmi factors work in practice without formally overruling them.4Immigration Policy Tracking Project. AG Sessions Issues Matter of L-A-B-R-, Restricting Continuances
Under L-A-B-R-, when a respondent asks for time to pursue a “collateral matter” (which includes a pending visa petition), the judge must prioritize two questions before anything else: how likely the respondent is to actually get the collateral relief, and whether that relief would change the outcome of the removal case. A weak answer to either shuts the motion down regardless of how the remaining factors look.
L-A-B-R- also directed judges to weigh administrative efficiency more heavily than Hashmi did, framing overuse of continuances as “a significant and recurring problem” that gives respondents “an illegitimate form of de facto relief from removal.” The result is a more skeptical posture, especially when the I-130 is early in USCIS processing or when the respondent’s adjustment eligibility is uncertain. There is no indication that L-A-B-R- has been vacated, so it should be treated as still in effect.
Hashmi’s protective side survives this. The BIA held that denying a continuance “based solely on case-completion goals” is an abuse of discretion, and that ruling has not been undone. But L-A-B-R- lets a judge fold docket age into the broader balance alongside other negatives, so a stale case with no visa-approval timeline in sight is harder to keep alive than it once was.
Building a Motion That Meets the Factors
A continuance motion lives or dies on its documentation. Vague statements about a pending petition go nowhere.
The foundational document is the Form I-797C, Notice of Action, the receipt USCIS sends when it accepts a petition.5U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Form I-797C, Notice of Action It proves a qualifying family member has filed the I-130 and that USCIS has it in the queue. If the petition has already been approved, the I-797 approval notice is even stronger.6U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Form I-797 Types and Functions
To speak to the “prima facie approvable” factor, attach evidence that the underlying relationship is real. For a spouse-based petition, that means the marriage certificate and other proof of a bona fide marriage. For a parent-child petition, birth certificates. A copy of the filed I-130 package can further show the petition’s strength.7U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. I-130, Petition for Alien Relative
Address adjustment eligibility head-on. If you were inspected and admitted at a port of entry, say so and attach what you have. If you need a waiver, name it and explain why it should be granted. A judge who can see the whole path from petition approval to green card is much more likely to give you the time.
Filing Mechanics and Deadlines
Motions must comply with the Immigration Court Practice Manual.8Executive Office for Immigration Review. OCIJ Immigration Court Practice Manual – Filing a Motion Since February 2022, the EOIR Courts and Appeals System (ECAS) has been mandatory at all immigration courts and the BIA, so attorneys and accredited representatives file electronically.9Executive Office for Immigration Review. EOIR Courts and Appeals System (ECAS) – Online Filing
Deadlines depend on the hearing type. For a non-detained respondent, a motion filed for a master calendar hearing is due at least fifteen days before the hearing. For an individual calendar hearing, it is due at least thirty days out.10Executive Office for Immigration Review. OCIJ Immigration Court Practice Manual – 2.1 – Delivery and Receipt Detained respondents follow deadlines set by the immigration judge. Missing the deadline can get the motion rejected without any look at the merits.
Every filing must be served on the DHS Office of Chief Counsel, by hand, U.S. mail, or commercial courier, and must include a Proof of Service listing who was served, where, when, and how.11U.S. Department of Justice. Immigration Court Practice Manual – Service on the Opposing Party Leaving out the Proof of Service is one of the more common ways a solid motion gets tossed on procedure. There is no filing fee for a motion to continue.12Executive Office for Immigration Review. Types of Appeals, Motions, and Required Fees
The Asylum Clock Tradeoff
Respondents with pending asylum applications should know that a granted continuance has a cost. The 180-day asylum EAD clock, which tracks eligibility for work authorization, stops when an immigration judge grants a respondent-requested continuance. USCIS treats it as an applicant-caused delay. The clock does not restart until the next hearing, and any further adjournment will be evaluated on its own.13U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The 180-Day Asylum EAD Clock Notice
That means buying time to wait for an I-130 can push back your ability to work legally. For respondents who depend on employment authorization, this belongs in the strategy from the start.
If the Judge Denies the Continuance
A denied motion sends the case forward. Depending on what else is pending, the judge may proceed to a merits hearing on the removal charges, or enter a removal order if no relief application is on the table.
A denial can be appealed to the BIA, but the review is deferential. A decision “will not be overturned except on a showing of clear abuse” of discretion. A judge who walks through the Hashmi and L-A-B-R- factors on the record and reaches a reasoned conclusion is unlikely to be reversed, even where another judge might have gone the other way. The stronger appellate arguments are that the judge ignored the factors, or denied the request on a single ground like docket management without engaging with the evidence.