One of the perennially difficult things about visas to the United States (both temporary and permanent ones) is that many of the categories are not written into the law in stone, but come with expiration dates. If Congress fails to take action to renew the visa category when it sunsets, no more visa category.

That’s bad luck not only for anyone thinking of applying for the visa in question, but typically for anyone who isn’t all the way through the system by the category’s expiration date. Applicants who haven’t either adjusted or changed their status while living in the U.S. or obtained a visa from a U.S. consulate overseas and used it to enter the United States will be stopped in their tracks and refused U.S. status or entry.

In some cases, Congressional renewals seem to happen fairly regularly (if last minute), such as with the R visa for religious workers.  (After reauthorization last fall, the R visa category is now good until September 30, 2015.)

In other cases, however, particularly where the visa was meant to respond to an urgent but not necessarily long-term need, Congress may decide to let the visa category lapse. Such may be the case with the Special Immigrant Visa for Iraqi translators.

This visa (allowing U.S. permanent residence or a green card) has been around only since 2008. It authorized issuance of 5,000 immigrant visas per year through September of 2013 (the government’s fiscal year end) to Iraqis who had served the U.S. government in Iraq.

The idea was to protect Iraqis whose work on behalf of the U.S. makes them potential targets of threats and violence by people in their own country.  According to the International Rescue Committee, “an untold number have been kidnapped or killed.” The trouble is, according to the IRC, the threats have continued after the 2011 departure of U.S. troops from Iraq, and not everyone who qualifies for a visa in this category has succeeded in getting one.

Okay Congress, you’ve got six months to act . . . .

Congress, the Supreme Court, and the American public have always been unsympathetic to immigrants who commit crimes in the United States. That’s not surprising nor disturbing in and of itself.

However, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chaidez v. United States is an uncomfortable reminder that this harshness extends to immigrants who may not have actually committed crimes, or whose crimes were so minor that even U.S. laws would not ordinarily deem them deportable.

Here’s the background on this situation: Because of wrong advice from criminal defense lawyers who didn’t fully understand the immigration laws (which, in these lawyers’ defense, are insanely tough to understand), many immigrants have pled guilty to, or otherwise failed to fully defend themselves against conviction for a crime — not realizing that the conviction’s presence on their record would make them deportable.

For instance, a criminal lawyer might reasonably tell an immigrant defendant, “Look, we got a great offer from the prosecutor — you plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and you’ll avoid jail time and a trial.” What the criminal lawyer may not know is that even some misdemeanors are considered “aggravated felonies” or “crimes of moral turpitude” under U.S. immigration law — either of which can make even a green card holder deportable from the United States. (See “Crimes That Will Make an Immigrant Deportable” for details.) Yet, relying on the lawyer’s advice, the immigrant might agree to plead guilty, rather than pushing for a trial that might perhaps result on a “not guilty” verdict.

The Supreme Court made some progress toward resolving this problem in a case called Padilla v. Kentucky. There, the Court held that criminal defense attorneys must inform noncitizen clients of the risks of deportation arising from guilty pleas — and if they didn’t, those convictions could later be challenged. That raised hopes that not only immigrants currently fighting deportation or a criminal conviction, but those whose criminal convictions had already become final could go back and have the case overturned.

Those hopes were dashed by the Chaidez case. The Padilla rule, according to the Court, does not apply retroactively. An immigrant with a final conviction for a crime — whether it’s final because all appeals are over or because the immigrant did not file an appeal within the time period allotted — must live with the consequences of that conviction. For more on the immigration consequences of criminal acts, see Nolo’s articles on “Crimes and U.S. Immigration.”

With various bills in Congress aimed at making E-Verify — the system by which U.S. businesses can double check the validity of employees’ work-authorizing documentation — mandatory for all employers, a controversy has begun about what this will mean in terms of bureaucracy, costs, and civil rights.

In a February 7, 2013 Wall Street Journal article, for instance, Laura Murphy of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office and Fred L. Smith, chairman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argue that the program will result in unfair job losses and burdens on employers.

But as often happens in the U.S. media, the controversy is quickly becoming muddled with mistakes and hysteria. Before you form your own opinion, consider these key legal facts:

•  E-Verify is a new method for enforcing an old law. In and of itself, there’s nothing either sinister nor exciting and different about employers being asked to check the documents of every employee. They’ve long been required to do that, in order to make sure that new hires are either U.S. citizens, permanent residents, nonimmigrants with a visa allowing work, or have a work permit in connection with some other immigration status. That process is often harder than it sounds, given the many types of potential documents, from different years and sources, that an employer must examine. E-Verify gives employers a new way to check whether the person is on record with the U.S. government as being who they say they are.
• The E-Verify database isn’t new. The system is already voluntary for employers in some states, and mandatory in other U.S. states. Making it mandatory nationwide will not change the fact that, as squeamish as this might make us feel, the U.S. government is amassing information on every working person in this country.
• Employers may NOT fire employees whose status in E-Verify is still being contested. As described by attorney Nicole Kersey in the article “What Employers Should Do After E-Verify Issues a Tentative Nonconfirmation for an Employee,” the first thing that happens when an employee’s data doesn’t match up with that in the E-Verify system is that the employer will get a nonconfirmation notice, and the employee will have an opportunity to provide further information or contest the nonconfirmation. Contrary to what was stated in the WSJ article, an employee who contests is protected from termination until E-Verify issues a “Final Nonconfirmation.”
• Some employers voluntarily choose E-Verify. Although it’s not a slam dunk, some employers find that they like the certainty of being able to check the E-Verify system, and the ability it gives them to develop a track record of compliance with U.S. immigration laws. See “Should Employers Sign Up for E-Verify?” for more about the pros and cons.

E-Verify isn’t perfect, of course. While the information in the database is getting better year by year, mistakes can happen. There are reasons for employers to avoid this system and for employees to worry about it. But let’s make this legislative decision calmly, without misrepresenting the law or the situation that already exists.

Although the number of young people applying for a work permit and temporary lawful status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has fallen in recent weeks, one thing hasn’t changed: the number of cases being approved remains (as it has been for several months) around 96%. It’s almost uncanny. You can check out U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS’s) latest figures here.

And for more information on the DACA program, check out Nolo’s series of articles.

This may be a first — I’m about to compliment the writing of a U.S. government employee. That’s right, the new Department of Homeland Security regulations called, “Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives,” just out in today’s Federal Register, are surprisingly readable. And that’s saying a lot, given that they go on for about 40 pages.

Good thing the new regs are readable, too, because they’re incredibly important. They establish both eligibility and application procedures for a new waiver process. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are inadmissible because they’ve been living in the U.S. unlawfully, and who are not eligible to remain in the U.S. to file their green card applications using the procedure called “adjustment of status,” can now file for a waiver of inadmissibility before, not after they leave the U.S. for the visa interview at which their green card might be granted. (The largest affected group will be immigrants who entered the U.S. without inspection.)

This pre-departure filing option is important because leaving the U.S. is a huge risk for people needing a waiver of unlawful presence. If their waiver is denied after their consular interview, their return to the U.S. will be barred for either three or ten years, depending on whether their unlawful stay lasted between 180 and 365 days or over 365 days.

Approval of a provisional waiver will allow them to depart with the knowledge that their unlawful stay won’t bar their return — and will therefore remove the fear of family separation that is blocking many potential lawful permanent residents from pursuing their green card application at all.

For details, see Nolo’s update, “DHS Publishes Procedures for Green Card Applicants to Request Unlawful Presence Waiver,” as well as its articles on ” Who Is Eligible for Provisional Waiver of Three- or Ten-Year Time Bar” and ” How to Apply for Provisional Waiver of Three- or Ten-Year Time Bar.”

If you are a lawful permanent resident of the U.S., be sure to carry your green card in a safe place when traveling — it’s a crucial document for reentry to the United States. Also realize that you’ll need to carry a passport from your home country, in order to gain entry to the countries to which you travel. With those in hand, all should go smoothly.

But just in case, it’s worth reviewing some of the other issues that can come up when traveling, such as:

• what to do if your green card is lost or stolen while traveling
• how to avoid the appearance of having abandoned your U.S. residence (and right to a green card)
• what activities can make you inadmissible upon your return to the U.S. (in which case you could be denied reentry), and
• what activities can make you deportable from the U.S. (in which case you could be placed into Immigration Court proceedings upon your return).

All of these are covered in the article, “Returning to the U.S. as a Green Card Holder.”

If traveling by air, also plan ahead regarding what you are allowed to pack. Some traditional American holiday gifts and foods that you might want to take to overseas family or friends — such as cranberry sauce, jams, wine or other alcohol, and maple syrup — are liquids, which can only be transported in checked bags.

Christmas crackers (more English than American — they’re not a food, but a sort of toy that makes a popping sound when opened) are prohibited on planes altogether. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would prefer you not wrap the gifts, either. (You can, but be ready to watch a TSA agent unwrap them if anything looks suspicious going through the screening machines.) For more information (such as how big a snow globe you can carry on) see the “TSA Christmas Traveling Tips 2012.”

If your business’s gross annual income is less than $10 million, your workforce numbers fewer than 25, and your business has been in operation for fewer than ten years, guess what: You match the “fraud indicators” outlined by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in a recently released document, putting any petitions that your business files to hire H-1B specialty temporary workers under suspicion. They’ve even got a catchy name for it: the “10/25/10″ formula.

Supposedly this formula was developed after analysis of where the largest volume of fraudulent applications was coming from. Small comfort if you’re a small business owner or manager trying to hire someone from another country! The situation isn’t hopeless, but you can expect lots of requests for documents, and quite possibly a site visit.

For more information, see the press release, “LAC Wins Release of H-1B Fraud Documents for AILA” from the American Immigration Council. And if you’re worried about these and other hassles associated with the H-1B visa, check out this recent article by San Francisco attorney Deborah Dyson: “When the H-1Bs Run Out: Alternative Visas and Strategies.”

Being summoned for immigration court proceedings can be terrifying, whether you are in the U.S. without documents or are a green card holder whom the U.S. government believes should be deported.

But whatever fears you may have about the process, there’s little need to fear that anything will happen overnight. This is particularly true if you have a defense to removal (and will not simply request “voluntary departure” at the earliest opportunity), which will justify holding a full (“merits”) hearing.

The reason? The immigration court system is getting more and more backed up with cases. According to statistics kept by TRACImmigration, by September of 2012 the backlog had grown to an all-time high of 325,044 cases nationwide. That’s 23.7% more people than were awaiting the conclusion of their court cases in September 2010.

This backlog has translated into waits of up to a year or more, depending on the type of case. The average wait has reached around 203 days to resolve cases that ended with removal orders and 781 days to resolve cases that ended with relief orders. (To check on details in your region, go to TRACImmigration’s “Immigration Court Backlog Tool.”

Part of the reason that such backlogs grow is that, if the person in proceedings (usually called the “alien”) has a lot of information to present to the immigration judge (such as personal testimony and that of witnesses), it’s unlikely that the merits hearing will be concluded in one day. And because the calendar is jam-packed, the judge will not, at the end of the first day’s hearing, say “Come back tomorrow.” Instead, the judge will put a new or “continued” court date on the calendar for many weeks or months into the future. (Expect weeks rather than months if you applied for asylum and were referred for immigration court proceedings.)

It can start to feel all very casual, as if the U.S. government really isn’t interested in finishing up your hearing. But don’t let this make you careless about keeping track of upcoming court dates, and arriving well in time. One missed court date and you could find yourself with an “order of deportation” on your record, and no further opportunities to defend yourself in court. See Nolo’s articles on “Immigrants in Deportation or Removal Proceedings” for more information.

The American Institute in Taiwan may see start seeing fewer requests for B-1 and B-2 tourist visas, thanks to a new policy announced by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Citizens of Taiwan are now eligible to participate in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), starting on November 1, 2012.

The VWP allows citizens of 37 countries to travel to the U.S. for up to 90 days at a time for purposes of business or tourism. Instead of applying for a visa in advance, which requires showing up for a personal interview and providing extensive documents, VWP travelers simply apply for authorization through what’s known as the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).

The VWP is not without its disadvantages, however. For example, you cannot apply to extend your VWP stay, but must leave the U.S. within the allotted 90-day period. For further details, see Nolo’s article, “Who Can Visit the U.S. Under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP).”