Proposed PAUSE Act Would Freeze Most Legal Immigration in U.S.

(TEXAS) — A Board of Immigration Appeals precedent holds that immigration judges may grant continuances only for “good cause shown,” and that long, open-ended delays are disfavored when the underlying relief is speculative or outside the court’s control. The decision—Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018)—has become newly practical as Congress debates the PAUSE Act, H.R. 10161, formally titled Pausing All Admissions Until Security Ensured, and as USCIS implements broad administrative “holds” that slow or stop adjudications.

For noncitizens in removal proceedings, the immediate question is not whether a moratorium is “fair,” but whether an immigration judge can pause a case while a visa petition, asylum application, or other benefit sits in limbo at USCIS. L-A-B-R- supplies the framework that courts and the BIA typically apply when respondents ask for time to wait out policy shifts, adjudication freezes, or uncertain legislative change.

The holding — what L-A-B-R- requires and why it matters now

In Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018), the Attorney General clarified how immigration judges should decide motions to continue proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, which permits continuances “for good cause shown.” The decision instructs judges to focus on two core questions:

1. The likelihood that the collateral relief will be granted, and
2. Whether that relief would materially affect the outcome of removal proceedings.

The opinion also recognized additional factors, including diligence, DHS’s position, administrative efficiency, and the procedural posture of the case. The practical effect is that respondents seeking continuances to pursue benefits at USCIS must show more than hope. They typically must show a concrete path to relief and credible timing.

That test is directly implicated by the current environment. The PAUSE Act (H.R. 10161) proposes a sweeping admissions freeze, with only limited exceptions. Separately, USCIS has announced a universal hold on Form I-589 adjudications under Policy Memorandum PM-602-0192 (Dec. 2, 2025), and additional holds for applicants from certain countries. When USCIS pauses adjudications, respondents often turn to immigration court and ask for time. L-A-B-R- is the precedent that constrains how much time a judge may give.

Key facts and procedural posture in L-A-B-R-

L-A-B-R- arose from a familiar situation: a respondent in removal proceedings sought a continuance to pursue “collateral” relief with another agency. In many cases, that collateral relief is a visa petition, a labor certification, or an application that—if approved—could support adjustment of status under INA § 245.

The Attorney General emphasized that continuances cannot be granted as a matter of routine. Immigration courts face heavy dockets, and indefinite pauses can undermine case completion goals. At the same time, the decision did not ban continuances. It required a reasoned analysis tied to likelihood, materiality, and timing.

In practice, the case tightened expectations around evidence. Respondents generally need:

• Receipts and filing histories,
• Proof of eligibility, and
• A clear explanation of why the collateral process is likely to conclude favorably within a reasonable period.

How the precedent collides with today’s “pause” policies

1) USCIS asylum hold and removal proceedings

USCIS’s December 2025 memorandum directs officers to place an immediate hold on I-589 adjudications. Asylum itself is governed primarily by INA § 208 and related regulations, and asylum claims in removal proceedings are adjudicated by EOIR rather than USCIS in most cases once proceedings begin.

Still, the USCIS hold matters because many people have pending affirmative asylum filings, or they need USCIS action for work authorization tied to pending applications. When a respondent asks an immigration judge to continue proceedings because USCIS is not acting, L-A-B-R- pushes judges to ask:

• Will USCIS action occur soon, and
• Will that action change removability or relief eligibility in court?

If the hold is indefinite, judges may conclude that a continuance is not supported by good cause, especially where the respondent can pursue asylum defensively in court without waiting for USCIS.

Warning: If you are in removal proceedings, waiting on USCIS may not stop your court case. Many asylum claims can be filed and decided in immigration court without USCIS action.

2) High-risk country “benefit request” holds

USCIS’s memorandum also describes holds for pending benefit requests for nationals of listed “high-risk” countries, tied to a presidential proclamation. Those holds can affect family petitions, employment filings, and adjustment applications that might otherwise support termination, administrative closure, or continuances.

Under L-A-B-R-, a respondent asking for time must show the benefit is likely to be approved and will materially change the case. But a categorical hold can make timing speculative, even where eligibility is strong. That increases the risk that a judge denies a continuance and proceeds to merits or removal.

Warning: Country-based holds can make the timing prong difficult. Bring documentation showing eligibility and any agency communications about expected review steps.

3) The PAUSE Act, H.R. 10161, and “wait for Congress” strategies

The PAUSE Act (H.R. 10161, Pausing All Admissions Until Security Ensured) is legislative, not adjudicative. A bill proposal—even one with political momentum—usually does not create a present legal benefit. That is critical under L-A-B-R-. Immigration judges generally decide cases under current law and typically cannot grant long continuances based on potential future statutes.

If respondents request continuances to “see what Congress does,” L-A-B-R- supplies a basis to deny, because the likelihood and timing of legislative change are uncertain. Even if a bill passes, effective dates and transition rules can vary.

Deadline reminder: Missing an EOIR filing deadline can forfeit relief. Continuance denials can accelerate a case. Track all deadlines listed on EOIR orders and hearing notices.

Where judges still may grant continuances post–L-A-B-R-

L-A-B-R- is not all downside for respondents. It provides a structured argument for continuances where facts are strong. Examples that often fare better include:

• A visa petition or waiver already filed, with strong evidence of eligibility.
• A near-term adjudication event, such as an interview scheduled or an RFE response submitted.
• A relief path that clearly changes the court outcome, such as adjustment eligibility under INA § 245 or certain cancellation scenarios under INA § 240A.

Judges also consider diligence. If a respondent waited to file a petition until after proceedings started, that can cut against continuance requests. Conversely, proof of steady pursuit and prompt responses can help.

Circuit variation and related precedent

Continuance law can vary by circuit because federal courts review BIA decisions under deferential standards but sometimes disagree on what constitutes an abuse of discretion. The core 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 “good cause” standard is nationwide, but outcomes can hinge on local practice and circuit case law.

Related BIA precedents often cited alongside L-A-B-R- include:

• Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009) (continuances tied to family-based petitions).
• Matter of Rajah, 25 I&N Dec. 127 (BIA 2009) (continuances tied to employment-based processes).
• Matter of Sanchez Sosa, 25 I&N Dec. 807 (BIA 2012) (continuances connected to U visa filings).

These cases remain relevant, but L-A-B-R- reframed the analysis around likelihood and materiality as primary considerations.

No major “dissent” exists in L-A-B-R- because it is an Attorney General decision rather than a multi-member BIA panel with separate opinions. The controversy is practical: critics argue it can force cases forward even when agency delays are not the respondent’s fault.

H-1B and employment cases: a sharper pinch

The reported $100,000 fee requirement tied to a September 2025 proclamation, if applicable to “new H-1B petitions” as described, can change the collateral-relief calculus for continuances. In many employment-based cases, respondents seek time for an employer filing to mature into adjustment eligibility. If filings are deterred or paused, judges may find the underlying relief too uncertain.

For employers and employees, documentation becomes central. If an employer remains committed, counsel often presents evidence of:

• Ability and intent to proceed,
• The position’s specialty nature, and
• A credible timetable.

Without that, L-A-B-R- gives judges room to deny.

Practical takeaways for respondents and practitioners

1. Build the record early. File collateral benefits promptly when eligible. Keep receipts, notices, and proof of follow-up.
2. Prove likelihood, not just possibility. Bring eligibility evidence and explain any legal obstacles.
3. Address timing head-on. If USCIS is on hold, explain whether any steps can still occur. Offer realistic time frames.
4. Have a Plan B in court. If a continuance is denied, be ready to proceed on asylum, withholding (INA § 241(b)(3)), CAT, cancellation (INA § 240A), or other relief you may qualify for.
5. Expect PAUSE Act arguments to be limited. Proposed legislation rarely supports long continuances by itself. Courts usually apply existing law.

Given the stakes—detention risk, in absentia orders, and permanent bars—people affected by USCIS holds or the uncertainty surrounding the PAUSE Act, H.R. 10161 (Pausing All Admissions Until Security Ensured) should speak with a qualified immigration attorney. A lawyer can tailor continuance strategy to the assigned judge, the circuit’s standards, and the strongest available relief.

⚖️ 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
– USCIS Newsroom
– EOIR (Immigration Court information)