Hashmi: A Pending Family Petition Required a Case-Specific Continuance Decision

When your family petition is still pending, an immigration court hearing can arrive before USCIS finishes its work. The concern is concrete: You need a fair chance to pursue a family-based path to permanent residence while the removal case moves forward. In Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009), the Board of Immigration Appeals required a closer examination of that situation after a judge denied more time based on case-completion goals. The Board sent the case back for an evidence-based decision on the continuance request.

The useful lesson is to explain the whole path from the pending petition to the relief sought in court. What has been filed? What is delaying the decision? How would approval affect this person’s eligibility? Later decisions sharpened the required balance, including the importance of diligence, the requested length of delay and the case’s hearing history.

The petition was pending while the file moved between government offices

Ajmal Hussain Shah Hashmi, a citizen of Pakistan, entered the United States as a visitor in October 2000 and married a U.S. citizen in 2001. At his first immigration court appearance in September 2003, he conceded removability and told the judge that he intended to seek adjustment of status based on his wife’s pending Form I-130 family petition. The judge gave him four months for USCIS to adjudicate it.

At the next hearing, Hashmi reported that he had attended a USCIS interview in November 2003 and supplied the additional documents requested the following month. The government’s attorney said the file was at the USCIS office. Further hearings followed, and the judge granted four continuances in all. At the March 2005 hearing, Hashmi’s lawyer reported the opposite obstacle: USCIS could not decide the petition because the government’s trial attorney now had the file. DHS did not oppose another continuance.

The judge denied that fifth request, citing the earlier continuances, the roughly 18 months that had passed, and the Department of Justice’s case-completion goals. The Board initially affirmed. As its later opinion recounts, the Third Circuit vacated that decision because the judge had relied solely on completion goals rather than the individual circumstances. The court also rejected the Board’s appellate fact-finding about Hashmi’s responsibility for delay, including concerns about a prior marriage and divorce document. Those concerns needed proper record development rather than an appellate finding that supplied a new reason to deny the request.

The Board required attention to the likely path to adjustment

On remand, the Board set out five illustrative considerations: DHS’s position on the request; whether the family petition appears approvable; the person’s statutory eligibility for adjustment of status; whether adjustment merits a favorable exercise of discretion; and the reason for more time, together with other procedural factors. Its central concern was the apparent likelihood that the adjustment application would ultimately succeed.

Those questions address different steps. A promising family petition establishes one part of the proposed route. The judge also needs a basis to assess whether the person can obtain adjustment and whether the record supports a favorable discretionary decision. In discussing that assessment, the Board identified such matters as admissibility, any needed waiver, family ties, immigration history and criminal history.

The reason for the delay was also important. The Board described USCIS processing and the movement of the file between the adjudicator and trial attorney as the obstacles in Hashmi’s case. Delay not attributable to the person seeking relief weighed in favor of allowing time. The judge was required to articulate, balance and explain the relevant circumstances rather than count prior continuances alone.

The missing petition evidence was a real gap in the record

Despite the repeated hearings about the pending petition, the Board noted that Hashmi had not submitted evidence of the I-130 or specified when it was filed. That detail matters: A lawyer’s account of a pending petition leaves the judge with less to evaluate than the actual filing and receipt. The Board explained that a request may need the I-130 packet and Form I-797 receipt, along with prior petition decisions where those bear on the viability of the current filing.

The Board also explained that the judge may require evidence of initial eligibility for adjustment, including the application and supporting documents, and evidence addressing admissibility or an appropriate waiver when necessary. These materials help answer whether waiting for the petition has a realistic prospect of affecting the removal case. The request should identify the legal and factual obstacle the additional time would allow the person to overcome.

The Board sustained Hashmi’s appeal and returned the case to the immigration judge for a new decision under the stated factors. It expressly allowed the parties an opportunity to supply the described evidence. The result was a renewed, properly supported assessment of the request—not a decision that the family petition or adjustment application had already succeeded.

Later decisions focus the balance on likelihood and practical effect

Today’s request should account for Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405, 413–418 (A.G. 2018). The Attorney General identified two principal questions: How likely is the requested collateral relief, and would it materially affect the removal proceeding? Diligence, DHS’s position, administrative efficiency, the requested delay and prior proceedings remain relevant. The person requesting the continuance bears the burden of showing good cause.

L-A-B-R- also clarified two points that affect how Hashmi should be used. DHS’s agreement or lack of opposition is relevant, but the judge must still find good cause. Administrative efficiency is a proper consideration within a case-specific assessment. A decision based solely on completion goals is different from a decision that weighs the actual hearing history and the effect of another delay alongside the prospect of relief.

The Board applied that approach again in Matter of L. Ramirez, 30 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2026). In that U-visa case, favorable eligibility and material-effect factors were outweighed by an open-ended request, earlier continuances, DHS’s opposition and other procedural circumstances. The Board emphasized the same balancing framework for visa-based continuance requests generally, including the significance of remote visa availability. A family-based request should therefore explain the actual route and relevant visa availability rather than assume every pending petition presents the same timing problem.

Explain what more time would accomplish and why it is needed now

Timing and preparation also mattered in Matter of J-A-F-S-, 29 I&N Dec. 195 (BIA 2025). There, a person sought to postpone an individual hearing to investigate a newly raised possibility of special-rule cancellation for a battered spouse. The Board found the showing speculative: The request lacked an application and evidence of key eligibility requirements, did not explain the needed time, and failed to establish diligence. It vacated the continuance and remanded for an individual hearing.

That was a different relief request from Hashmi’s pending family petition. Its practical relevance is the need to connect the proposed delay to concrete work and evidence. A useful chronology shows the filing, agency requests and responses, efforts to address obstacles, earlier continuances and the next identifiable event. Where timing is uncertain, explain the uncertainty and the basis for the period requested rather than present a general processing estimate as a promised decision date.

The current continuance regulation, 8 C.F.R. section 1003.29, requires good cause. For the court’s filing and attendance requirements, use our separate continuance motion guide. The family petition record and the court’s scheduled hearing need to be managed together.

What to bring when a family petition is still pending

• The actual petition record: Bring the filed I-130, receipt notice, requests for evidence, responses and any prior petition decisions.
• The proposed adjustment route: Identify the application, visa category and availability, and any eligibility or waiver issue counsel needs to assess.
• A documented explanation of delay: Separate agency processing or file problems from tasks still awaiting your response, and attach the relevant correspondence.
• The hearing history and requested period: Bring prior orders and explain the event being awaited, work already completed, remaining steps and evidence supporting the time requested.

These are practical preparation steps based on the decisions’ reasoning. They help counsel present a specific request and address weaknesses before the hearing. Our separate approved I-130 guide explains the relationship between petition approval and the continuing removal case.

Questions families may have

Does DHS’s lack of opposition settle the request?

The judge still must find good cause. Under L-A-B-R-, DHS’s position is a relevant factor, while the likelihood and material effect of the proposed relief remain the principal focus.

Do earlier continuances make another request hopeless?

Prior continuances form part of the procedural record. The judge must weigh them with the other relevant circumstances. A well-supported prospect of relief may compensate for some weaker factors, while an indefinite request or a weak prospect of meaningful relief can weigh against more time.

What did Hashmi obtain from the Board?

The Board sustained his appeal and remanded for a new continuance decision, with an opportunity for the parties to provide the evidence it described. That is the procedural benefit the actual order supplied: a decision based on the relevant facts, eligibility and discretion rather than case-completion goals alone.