People in removal proceedings often assume that asking the court for more time is a formality — the kind of scheduling request a clerk waves through. It is not. A continuance in immigration court is a discretionary ruling by the immigration judge, measured against a legal standard, and the reasoning behind a denial can follow a case all the way to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The rule is one sentence long, and that is the whole problem
The governing regulation says that the immigration judge may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown. That is essentially all it says. It lists no qualifying reasons, no factors, and no outer time limit. A second regulation allows the judge to grant a reasonable adjournment once a hearing has begun, either on the judge's own initiative or, for good cause shown, on application by the respondent or by the Department of Homeland Security.
Two things follow from that text. First, either side can ask — DHS requests continuances too, and a judge may move a case without anyone asking. Second, because the regulation defines nothing, almost everything a judge actually does with a continuance request comes from precedent decisions of the Board and the Attorney General.
Master calendar versus individual hearing: one standard, two conversations
A master calendar hearing is a short, scheduling-focused appearance. Pleadings may not have been taken, counsel may not be retained, and the form of relief the person will pursue may not yet be identified. A request for time at that stage is a request to let the case take shape, and I have personally filed many of these motions and they were all approved, but I have never filed a motion to continue an individual hearing.
An individual merits hearing is different in kind. It is a block of court time set aside for testimony, with an interpreter booked and witnesses expected, and the record is generally supposed to be complete by then. The legal standard does not change between the two settings. What changes is the weight of the timing and efficiency considerations judges are directed to balance, and the fact that a late request asks the court to undo work already scheduled. This is a general description of how these hearings differ, not a prediction about any particular request, but in my experience a motion to continue an individual hearing is much less likely to be approved.
Time to find and retain a lawyer
There is a statutory and regulatory privilege of representation in removal proceedings, at no expense to the government. In Matter of C-B-, the Board held that where that privilege has not been expressly waived, the immigration judge must grant a reasonable and realistic period of time to give the respondent a fair opportunity to seek, speak with, and retain counsel.
Reasonable and realistic is not unlimited. A first request by an unrepresented person who has just received charging documents is not the same conversation as a fourth request, and asking for time to find a lawyer is not the same as asking to substitute a new lawyer shortly before a merits hearing. C-B- also addresses a separate duty: if a respondent expresses a fear of persecution or harm in the country of removal, the judge must advise them of the right to apply for asylum or withholding of removal, including protection under the Convention Against Torture, and make the application forms available.
Waiting on something filed somewhere else
The most common continuance request asks the court to wait for a decision from another authority — most often U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. A pending family petition, a U nonimmigrant visa petition, or a provisional waiver all raise the same basic question: is the outside filing likely to be approved, and would approval actually change the outcome of this case?
In Matter of Hashmi, the Board held that an unopposed motion to continue while a family-based visa petition is pending should generally be granted if approval of the petition would make the respondent prima facie eligible to adjust status. Hashmi lists the factors: DHS's response to the motion, whether the petition is prima facie approvable, statutory eligibility for adjustment of status, whether adjustment would merit a favorable exercise of discretion, and the reason for the continuance along with other procedural factors. Hashmi also makes clear that the request should be supported by particularized facts and evidence — including a copy of the petition packet filed with USCIS and the receipt notice.
For U visa petitions, Matter of Sanchez Sosa sets out three considerations: DHS's response, whether the petition is prima facie approvable, and the reason for the continuance with other procedural factors. Prima facie eligibility there ordinarily requires an approved law enforcement certification, substantial physical or mental abuse as the innocent victim of a qualifying crime, and helpfulness to law enforcement. Sanchez Sosa also articulated a rebuttable presumption that a respondent who has filed a prima facie approvable U petition warrants a favorable exercise of discretion for a continuance for a reasonable period — language the Board quoted again in 2026. A pending provisional unlawful presence waiver raises the same structural question, documented the same way.
Matter of L-A-B-R- and the limits of discretion
In Matter of L-A-B-R-, the Attorney General held that "good cause shown" is a substantive requirement that constrains a judge's discretion and prohibits granting continuances for any reason or no reason at all. Where the continuance is sought to pursue collateral relief from another authority, the decision requires the judge to consider and balance multiple relevant factors — among them the respondent's diligence, DHS's position, administrative efficiency, the length of time requested, the number of hearings already held and continuances already granted, and when the motion was made.
L-A-B-R- also frames the policy behind that constraint: DHS alone decides whether and when to initiate removal proceedings, and once a case is before the court it must proceed expeditiously, with continuances reserved for cases that genuinely warrant a brief pause. That decision governs unless and until it is overruled or superseded, and its current status should be confirmed before anyone relies on it.
Asylum cases run on a second clock
The Immigration and Nationality Act directs that, absent exceptional circumstances, final administrative adjudication of an asylum application — not counting administrative appeal — be completed within 180 days after filing. EOIR's own rulemaking materials describe the practical consequence: where a continuance would push the adjudication past that mark, the request implicates both the good-cause standard and the statute's "exceptional circumstances" language. In an asylum case, in other words, a continuance request can face a second and higher standard layered on top of the first, and who asked for the delay can matter.
A continuance is not administrative closure
These are two different things governed by two different provisions. A continuance keeps the case on the docket and gives it a new hearing date. Administrative closure temporarily suspends the case; either party may later move to recalendar it, and where that motion is opposed the judge must consider the totality of the circumstances.
In Matter of Ibarra-Vega, decided in February 2026, the Board held that where a U nonimmigrant visa is not immediately available and the record does not establish that one is likely to become available in the reasonably near future, administrative closure is not appropriate over DHS's objection. Narrowing closure pushes pressure back onto continuance practice — toward shorter requests, better documented.
How the request is actually made
EOIR's Immigration Court Practice Manual directs that a request to continue a hearing should be made by written motion; oral motions to continue are discouraged. The motion should set out the reasons in detail and, where appropriate, be supported by evidence. It should state the date and time of the scheduled hearing and the party's preferred alternative dates, though the court retains discretion to reschedule as it sees fit, and it should carry a cover page labeled "MOTION TO CONTINUE" and comply with the court's general filing requirements.
One rule deserves emphasis because misunderstanding it causes real damage: filing a motion to continue does not excuse anyone from appearing. Until the motion is granted, the respondent and the practitioner of record must appear at all hearings as originally scheduled. Chapter numbering, filing mechanics and electronic filing requirements change; the current Practice Manual controls.
If the motion is denied
The judge rules and the case proceeds. A denial is ordinarily challenged later, on appeal to the Board from the final order, and a reviewing body asks whether the judge's exercise of discretion was supportable on the record that was actually built. That is the practical argument for filing in writing, filing early, and attaching the documents — receipt notices, petition copies, certifications — that let a judge weigh the factors the precedent decisions require.
Every one of these decisions turns on a specific record and a specific procedural history, and nothing here is advice about any individual case. Anyone with a hearing date in immigration court should speak with an immigration attorney well before that date arrives.