(GEORGIA) — The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that immigration judges may consider a noncitizen’s family-court custody obligations and children’s welfare when deciding whether to grant a discretionary continuance to pursue collateral immigration relief, but only where the respondent shows concrete, near-term progress toward that relief and explains why the time requested is necessary. In practical terms, Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018) remains a gatekeeping precedent in Georgia removal dockets: it does not bar continuances tied to family stability, yet it demands a focused showing that the underlying application is likely to be resolved within a reasonable period and would materially affect removability.
That standard is landing amid a sharp rise in enforcement-driven family crises in Georgia, where deportations and sudden detention often collide with pending benefit filings at USCIS and state court custody orders. With USCIS announcing a January 1, 2026 adjudicative “hold and review” policy memorandum affecting certain nationals from additional countries, the timing problem is worsening. When USCIS processing freezes or re-reviews a case, many respondents appear in Immigration Court without a clear decision date to present to the judge.
The governing precedent: a “primary factor” test for continuances
Continuances in Immigration Court are authorized by regulation when “good cause” is shown (see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29). In Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018), the Attorney General instructed immigration judges to apply a structured, case-specific test when a continuance is requested to pursue collateral relief, most often a USCIS adjudication.
The decision’s core holding is that the “good cause” inquiry must center on two primary factors:
- The likelihood that the collateral relief will be granted; and
- Whether that relief would materially affect the outcome of removal proceedings.
Secondary considerations include the respondent’s diligence, DHS’s position, the number and length of prior continuances, and administrative efficiency. The point was to curb open-ended delays based on speculative filings or remote possibilities.
For Georgia practitioners, the practical impact is immediate: continuance motions increasingly live or die on documentation from USCIS, the visa category, the statutory basis for relief, and whether the respondent can show a realistic adjudication timeline.
Warning (Continuance risk): If your request relies on a pending USCIS filing with no receipt notice, no prima facie eligibility, or no plausible decision window, many judges will deny a continuance under Matter of L-A-B-R-.
Key facts that produced the decision
Although Matter of L-A-B-R- is frequently cited as a policy-driven restriction, it was rooted in a familiar Immigration Court scenario. Respondents sought more time to pursue benefits outside EOIR, such as family-based petitions, waivers, or other USCIS adjudications. Immigration judges granted repeated continuances in some cases, and agency leadership viewed that practice as fueling docket growth and delaying removals.
The Attorney General’s decision did not eliminate continuances. It recalibrated them toward evidence-based case management. The record in L-A-B-R- showed requests tied to collateral relief without a sufficiently concrete showing of near-term viability. That factual posture drove the opinion’s emphasis on probabilities, not hopes.
Why this matters now in Georgia: enforcement pressure meets family-court realities
Georgia’s current environment intensifies the collision between Immigration Court scheduling and family-court deadlines. State judges may enter custody and parenting-time orders in cases where one parent is detained or at risk of removal. Meanwhile, federal enforcement has accelerated, and respondents report shorter timeframes between arrest, NTA issuance, and master calendar hearings.
Layered onto that is USCIS’s stated January 1, 2026 policy memorandum (PM-602-0194) placing adjudicative holds and re-reviews on certain benefit applications. Whether or not a particular filing is covered, the broader effect is predictable: uncertainty in USCIS timing makes it harder to satisfy L-A-B-R-’s demand for a realistic adjudication horizon.
That uncertainty can be legally decisive. Many forms of relief depend on USCIS actions outside EOIR’s control, including:
- Approval of an immediate relative I-130 petition that can support adjustment of status under INA § 245.
- Certain humanitarian benefits whose approvals affect removability or eligibility for relief.
- Employment authorization and lawful status changes that may affect discretionary equities, even if not dispositive.
When USCIS timelines become opaque, respondents in Georgia often argue that family hardship and children’s best interests justify more time. L-A-B-R- allows judges to consider those equities, but not as a substitute for the “primary factor” showing.
Deadline (Document fast): If you request a continuance, bring USCIS receipt notices, RFE responses, biometrics notices, and any case-status printouts. Judges often expect proof of progress, not just intent to file.
How the precedent shapes future cases: what “good cause” looks like after L-A-B-R-
1) Family hardship helps most when it supports diligence and materiality
In mixed-status Georgia families, a sudden detention can trigger custody filings, Hague Convention consultations, or guardianship planning. Those facts can support a continuance request, but typically only indirectly. They help show diligence, explain logistical barriers, and bolster discretionary equities.
They do not replace the need to show that the USCIS case is viable and outcome-changing. If a respondent cannot yet adjust status, cannot file the needed waiver, or faces a statutory bar, hardship alone rarely carries the day under L-A-B-R-.
2) A USCIS “hold” complicates the “likelihood” and “timeline” factors
A key tension is that a USCIS hold may not mean the applicant is ineligible; it may mean the case cannot move. Continuance law, however, is focused on reasonable case completion time.
In many courtrooms, that translates into a practical question: Is the continuance request for a defined period tied to a defined agency step? For example, a continuance to await a scheduled interview date is different from a continuance to wait out an indefinite re-review.
3) Judges may favor narrower continuances with status checks
Post-L-A-B-R-, some judges grant shorter continuances with explicit instructions. They may require:
- A status update to the court;
- Proof that a waiver or other filing has been made; or
- Evidence that USCIS has taken a discrete step (e.g., scheduled interview, issued RFE).
This approach matters in Georgia where family court hearings may be set quickly and removal hearings may also be accelerated.
Warning (Open-ended delays): Requests for “six months because USCIS is backlogged” often fail. More tailored requests tied to a specific USCIS milestone may fare better.
Related and potentially conflicting authority: the broader continuance framework
The BIA has long evaluated continuances for collateral relief through a multi-factor lens. Notable precedents include:
- Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009) — addressed continuances based on pending family-based petitions, emphasizing the stage of the petition and case posture.
- Matter of Sanchez Sosa, 25 I&N Dec. 807 (BIA 2012) — addressed continuances for U-visa-related relief.
L-A-B-R- did not erase those decisions, but it reframed the analysis around likelihood and materiality. Some circuits have emphasized that immigration judges must still consider the record as a whole, and outcomes can vary by jurisdiction. Georgia sits within the Eleventh Circuit, so practitioners must track Eleventh Circuit case law on continuances and due process, plus local court culture.
Because continuances are discretionary, differences among circuits and even among individual courts can feel like “splits” in practice. The binding rule, however, remains that each continuance decision must be reasoned and grounded in the record.
Dissenting opinions and practical pushback
Matter of L-A-B-R- is an Attorney General decision, not a panel BIA opinion, so it does not include a formal dissent. The pushback has been practical rather than formal: advocates argue that strict continuance standards can separate families and destabilize child custody arrangements when USCIS delays are outside the respondent’s control.
Those concerns appear in motions raising due process arguments and in requests for administrative closure or termination in limited circumstances. Each remedy, however, has its own legal limits, and agency policies can change quickly.
Practical takeaways for Georgia cases involving deportations, family court, and USCIS
- File early and document every step. Continuances are evidence-driven. Bring receipts, notices, and proof of submission.
- Explain materiality in one sentence. The judge should see exactly how a USCIS approval changes removability or eligibility (for example, adjustment under INA § 245).
- Ask for the shortest workable continuance. Tie the request to a scheduled event, an RFE response window, or an interview date.
- Coordinate with family counsel. Custody orders, parenting plans, and guardianship documents can support equities and explain urgency; they do not replace immigration eligibility.
- Plan for enforcement contingencies. If a parent is detained, have a rapid-response plan for child care, school authorization, and access to funds.
- Get attorney help early. Continuance strategy intersects with removability defenses, bond, prosecutorial discretion, waivers, and USCIS procedures.
Given the stakes in Georgia—where deportations can happen quickly and USCIS timing may be uncertain—these cases frequently require coordinated representation across Immigration Court, USCIS filings, and state family court. A qualified immigration attorney can assess eligibility, statutory bars, and the best procedural posture before making a continuance request.
Official government resources
- EOIR Immigration Court information: justice.gov/eoir
- USCIS Newsroom: uscis.gov/newsroom
- USCIS Policy Manual: uscis.gov/policy-manual
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
Resources:
– AILA Lawyer Referral
The Board of Immigration Appeals emphasizes that while family welfare is a factor in granting continuances, it remains secondary to the likelihood and materiality of collateral relief. Under Matter of L-A-B-R-, Georgia respondents must provide concrete evidence of USCIS progress to avoid deportation. Ongoing enforcement and new USCIS ‘hold’ policies make it difficult for families to meet these strict evidence-based standards without detailed documentation and legal strategy.
