Immigration judges across the United States have reportedly been instructed to take a stricter approach to requests for more time in deportation proceedings, including cases where immigrants are waiting for visas, green cards, or other immigration benefits to become available.
According to a September 4, 2026 Guardian report, hundreds of immigration judges recently attended mandatory training titled “Motions to Continue: Efficiently Advancing Cases to Completion.” The training reportedly emphasized limiting continuances—requests that postpone immigration court proceedings—and encouraged judges to move cases toward decisions more quickly.
The development does not appear to create a new immigration law or replace the existing legal standard for continuances. Instead, it may affect how aggressively immigration courts apply existing rules as the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) works to reduce its large case backlog.
A continuance allows an immigration judge to postpone a hearing or decision. This can be especially important when a person in removal proceedings is simultaneously waiting for another government agency, such as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), to decide an immigration petition.
For example, someone may have a pending or approved family- or employment-based petition but still need additional time before becoming eligible to adjust status to permanent residence.
Under existing immigration law, judges may grant a continuance only when there is “good cause.” In Matter of L-A-B-R-, the Attorney General instructed immigration judges to consider whether the separate immigration benefit is likely to be granted and whether it would materially affect the removal case.
Judges may also consider factors such as the applicant’s diligence, the government’s position, previous continuances, administrative efficiency, and how much additional time is being requested.
That means an applicant has never been automatically entitled to additional time simply because another immigration application is pending.
The Guardian reported that the recent training takes a particularly restrictive approach to delays.
Training materials reviewed by the publication reportedly warned that some continuances may be requested primarily to delay removal. The presentation also appeared to discourage judges from giving immigrants lengthy periods to find attorneys and suggested that, in some circumstances, more than roughly 10 days might not be considered appropriate.
The training reportedly also focused on situations where an immigrant has an approved petition but cannot yet receive the visa or green card because a visa number is unavailable.
That distinction can be important. Many immigrant visa categories are subject to annual numerical limits, meaning an approved petition does not necessarily make someone immediately eligible for permanent residence.
For example, the September 2026 Visa Bulletin shows backlogs across several family- and employment-based categories. The EB-4 category, which includes many Special Immigrant Juvenile applicants, has a final action date of December 15, 2022 for most countries.
If immigration judges become less willing to continue cases while applicants wait for visa availability, some people could face a removal decision before the immigration benefit they are pursuing becomes available.
The reported training fits into a broader effort by EOIR to accelerate immigration court case processing.
EOIR’s current performance policy calls for courts to complete 95% of non-status detained removal cases within 60 days and 95% of non-status non-detained removal cases within one year. It also calls for 95% of motions to be decided within 30 days and for most merits hearings to be completed on the first scheduled hearing date.
At the same time, EOIR’s own policy states that expedited processing must remain consistent with due process and says the performance measures are not intended to dictate the outcome of individual cases or eliminate immigration judges’ discretion under applicable law.
That distinction is important: the agency is pushing immigration courts to move cases faster, but judges are still required to evaluate continuance requests under existing law and precedent.
This development does not create a new rule for F-1 status, CPT, Day 1 CPT, OPT, STEM OPT, or H-1B petitions themselves.
An international student maintaining valid F-1 status and going through routine USCIS processing is not automatically affected simply because immigration courts are limiting continuances.
The concern becomes much more significant when someone is already in removal proceedings while also pursuing another immigration benefit.
For international students or professionals in that situation, a pending USCIS petition should not be assumed to automatically pause immigration court proceedings. Applicants may need to demonstrate why the pending benefit is likely to succeed, how it could affect the removal case, and why additional time is justified under the good-cause standard.
The reported training also makes obtaining qualified immigration counsel early more important. According to the Guardian, judges were encouraged to scrutinize requests for additional time to obtain representation, potentially leaving respondents with less time than they previously expected.
For now, the biggest takeaway is that this is not a new blanket rule eliminating continuances. Rather, it signals a potentially more restrictive application of existing immigration court rules at a time when EOIR is placing significant emphasis on faster case completion.