<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Harms-Law.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.harms-law.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.harms-law.com</link>
	<description>We Specialize in Immigration Strategy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:49:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>House Votes to End Per-Country Limits for Skilled Workers Seeking Green Cards</title>
		<link>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/12/07/house-votes-to-end-per-country-limits-for-skilled-workers-seeking-green-cards/</link>
		<comments>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/12/07/house-votes-to-end-per-country-limits-for-skilled-workers-seeking-green-cards/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:34:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>melissa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Immigration Law in the News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[House]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigrant visas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[per country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skilled workers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Visa Bulletin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visa wait]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harms-law.com/?p=557</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week, the house voted 389-15 to end per-country limits on worker based immigration visas, a move that will benefit skilled Indian and Chinese residents seeking to stay in the United States.  The bad news is that foreign workers from other countries will now be subject to several year waits in the previously available “second-preference” [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last week, the house voted 389-15 to end per-country limits on worker based immigration visas, a move that will benefit skilled Indian and<br />
Chinese residents seeking to stay in the United States.  The bad news is that foreign workers from other countries will now be subject to several year waits in the previously available “second-preference” category.</p>
<p>The measure would eliminate a current provision in the law that provides that employment based visas to any one country cannot exceed seven<br />
percent of the total 140,000 allocated each fiscal year.</p>
<p>Although this provision will benefit those from over-subscribed countries such as India and China, those from “All Other<br />
Countries” in the second preference category which previously did not have to wait for a current visa number to file their adjustment of status applications,<br />
may now need to wait several years for a visa number before filing their applications for permanent residency.  Please see the current <a href="http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5603.html" target="_blank">State Department visa bulletin</a> which outlines which individuals may file their permanent residency applications each month based on their country of birth and priority date (date labor certification or immigrant visa petition is filed):</p>
<p>For more information about visa numbers and the current visa allocation visit the <a href="http://www.harms-law.com/information/immigrant-visas/" target="_blank">Immigrant Visa </a>page of our website.</p>
<p>This bill must now pass the Senate and be signed by President Obama, but given the limited opposition to its passage in the House, it has a very real chance of becoming law in the short term.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/12/07/house-votes-to-end-per-country-limits-for-skilled-workers-seeking-green-cards/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Options for UC Davis Students and Scholars After Leaving the University</title>
		<link>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/11/04/options-for-uc-davis-students-and-scholars-after-leaving-the-university/</link>
		<comments>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/11/04/options-for-uc-davis-students-and-scholars-after-leaving-the-university/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:24:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>melissa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harms-law.com/?p=531</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yesterday, I visited UC Davis and presented Options for UC Davis Students and Scholars After Graduation.  We discussed the H-1B visa and many students and scholars had further questions.  I invite you to visit my website under the H-1B information page or download the following handouts: H-1B Flowchart and Fact Sheet on H Visas.  If you are interested [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yesterday, I visited UC Davis and presented <a href="http://www.harms-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Options-for-UC-Davis-Students-and-Scholars-After-Graduation.pdf">Options for UC Davis Students and Scholars After Graduation</a>.  We discussed the H-1B visa and many students and scholars had further questions.  I invite you to visit my website under the <a href="http://www.harms-law.com/information/non-immigrant-visas/h-1b-specialty-occupation-visa/" target="_blank">H-1B information page</a> or download the following handouts: <a href="http://www.harms-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/H-1B-Steps.pdf">H-1B Flowchart</a> and <a href="http://www.harms-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/H-visa-LH.pdf">Fact Sheet on H Visas</a>.  If you are interested in discussing your case, please contact me at mharms at harms-law dot com to arrange a consultation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/11/04/options-for-uc-davis-students-and-scholars-after-leaving-the-university/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>238</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Asking for Too Many Documents in the Hiring Process Can Get You in Trouble</title>
		<link>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/30/asking-for-too-many-documents-in-the-hiring-process-can-get-you-in-trouble/</link>
		<comments>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/30/asking-for-too-many-documents-in-the-hiring-process-can-get-you-in-trouble/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>melissa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Worksite Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[back wages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[I-9]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work authorization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harms-law.com/?p=521</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Justice Department today reached a settlement agreement with Kinro Manufacturing Inc. in Indiana, resolving allegations  of discrimination against work-authorized non-citizens in the employment eligibility verification process. The company is a manufacturer of components for recreational vehicles and manufactured homes. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Kinro Manufacturing will pay a $25,000 civil penalty [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Justice Department today reached a settlement agreement with Kinro Manufacturing Inc. in Indiana, resolving allegations  of discrimination against work-authorized non-citizens in the employment eligibility verification process. The company is a manufacturer of components for recreational vehicles and manufactured homes.</p>
<p>Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Kinro Manufacturing will pay a $25,000 civil penalty and $10,000 in back pay to the injured party.  They will also alter their practices, train human resources personnel, and provide periodic reports to the department for one year.</p>
<p>According to the department’s findings, the company subjected newly hired non-U.S. citizens to excessive demands for documents  in order to verify their employment eligibility, but did not require U.S. citizens to show the same documentation. The charging party, a lawful permanent resident, filed his charge of discrimination after he was required to provide additional proof of his employment eligibility not required by law before he could begin work at the company. The Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from placing additional documentary burdens on workauthorized employees during the hiring and employment eligibility verification process based on their citizenship status or national origin.</p>
<p>If you have questions about the employment eligibility verification process please contact our office at info at harms-law.com.</p>
<p>The DOJ press release can be found at: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/August/11-ag-1098.html</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/30/asking-for-too-many-documents-in-the-hiring-process-can-get-you-in-trouble/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alabama Immigration Law Blocked</title>
		<link>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/30/alabama-immigration-law-blocked/</link>
		<comments>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/30/alabama-immigration-law-blocked/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:31:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>melissa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Immigration Law in the News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigration reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[border]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigration and customs enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Immigration Laws]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harms-law.com/?p=516</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of Alabama&#8217;s new law cracking down on illegal immigration, ruling Monday that she needed more time to decide whether the law opposed by the Obama administration, church leaders and immigrant-rights groups is constitutional. This means the law won&#8217;t take effect as scheduled on Thursday.   The brief order did [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of Alabama&#8217;s new law cracking down on illegal immigration, ruling Monday that she needed more time to decide whether the law opposed by the <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/barack-obama/">Obama</a> administration, church leaders and immigrant-rights groups is constitutional.</p>
<p>This means the law won&#8217;t take effect as scheduled on Thursday.   The brief order did not go into whether the law is constitutional, and the judge could still let all or parts of the law take effect later. A longer ruling will be issued by Sept. 28 after the judge has had more time to consider lawsuits filed by the Justice Department, private groups and individuals that claim the state is overstepping its bounds with the law.</p>
<p>The law includes provisions requiring police to verify the status of people stopped whom they suspect may be in the country illegally. The law also makes it a crime to knowingly rent housing to unlawful immigrants.  It would require schools to verify the citizenship status of students. Officials say it wouldn&#8217;t prevent illegal immigrants from attending public schools. Both supporters and opponents say Alabama&#8217;s law is the nation&#8217;s toughest against illegal immigration.</p>
<p>Read more:</p>
<p>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/08/29/national/a120401D24.DTL</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/30/alabama-immigration-law-blocked/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I-9 Violations Costly for Employers</title>
		<link>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/25/i-9-violations-costly-for-employers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/25/i-9-violations-costly-for-employers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:33:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>melissa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Worksite Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Form I-9]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work authorization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harms-law.com/?p=513</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Navigating the I-9 process can be difficult and mistakes or violations can be costly. The Justice Department today reached a settlement agreement with Farmland Foods Inc., a major producer of pork products in Kansas City, MO, resolving allegations of document abuse and discrimination in violation of the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).   Farmland [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Navigating the I-9 process can be difficult and mistakes or violations can be costly. The Justice Department today reached a settlement agreement with Farmland Foods Inc., a major producer of pork products in Kansas City, MO, resolving allegations of document abuse and discrimination in violation of the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).   Farmland has agreed to pay $290,400 in civil penalties, the highest civil penalty paid through settlement since enactment of the INA’s anti-discrimination provision in 1986.  The DOJ stated that Farmland engaged in discrimination by imposing unnecessary and excessive documentary requirements on non-U.S. citizens and foreign-born U.S. citizens during the I-9 employment eligibility verification process. The investigation revealed that Farmland required all newly hired non-U.S. citizens and some foreign-born U.S. citizens at its Monmouth, Ill., plant to present specific and, in many cases, extra work-authorization documents beyond those required by federal law. In the case of non-U.S. citizens, Farmland required the presentation of additional work authorization documents, generally by requiring social security cards, even when employees had already produced other documents establishing work authority. In the case of foreign-born naturalized U.S. citizens, Farmland required evidence of citizenship, such as certificates of naturalization or U.S. passports, even when those individuals had other means of proving their work authority. Farmland’s demand for specific or excessive documents to establish work authority.</p>
<p>Our attorneys conduct I-9 trainings for employers and human resources personnel.  If you are interested in a training or have questions about the I-9 form please contact our office at info at harms-law.com.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/25/i-9-violations-costly-for-employers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Foreign Students Protest</title>
		<link>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/23/foreign-students-protest/</link>
		<comments>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/23/foreign-students-protest/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:44:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>melissa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Immigration Law in the News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Students]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Students and Scholars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[J-1 Visa Program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Student Protests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Student Visa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USCIS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harms-law.com/?p=505</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[About 400 foreign students walked off their jobs last week at a plant here that packs Hershey’s chocolates, saying the J-1 summer program which is supposed to be a cultural exchange had instead turned them into underpaid labor.  The students, from countries including China, Nigeria, Romania and Ukraine, came to the United States through the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>About 400 foreign students walked off their jobs last week at a plant here that packs Hershey’s chocolates, saying the J-1 summer program which is supposed to be a cultural exchange had instead turned them into underpaid labor.  The students, from countries including China, Nigeria, Romania and Ukraine, came to the United States through the long-established State Department summer visa program that allows them to work for two months and then travel. They said they were expecting to practice their English, make some money and learn what life is like in the United States. The students were put to work lifting heavy boxes and packing Reese’s candies, Kit-Kats and Almond Joys on a fast-moving production line, many of them on a night shift. After paycheck deductions for fees associated with the program and for their rent, students said at a rally in front of the huge packing plant that many of them were not earning nearly enough to recover what they had spent in their home countries to obtain their visas.</p>
<p>Although the J-1 summer program has drawn complaints recently from students about low wages and unexpectedly difficult work conditions this appears to be the first time that foreign students have engaged in a strike to protest their employment.</p>
<p>The arrangements that brought the foreign students to work at the Eastern Distribution Center III near Hershey, PA involved layers of contractors. A spokesman for Hershey’s, Kirk Saville, said the chocolate company did not directly operate the Palmyra packing plant, which is managed by a company called Exel. A spokeswoman for Exel said it had found the student workers through another staffing company.  The students said they mainly placed blame on the organization that manages the J-1 visa program for the State Department, the <a href="http://www.cetusa.org/">Council for Educational Travel, U.S.A.</a>, which is based in California.</p>
<p>If you have any questions about the J-1 visa program or student visas please contact our office at info at harms-law.com.</p>
<p>You can read more about this story at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/us/18immig.html?pagewanted=1&amp;hpw</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/23/foreign-students-protest/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Priority Processing of Citizenship for SSI Recipients</title>
		<link>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/17/496/</link>
		<comments>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/17/496/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:10:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>melissa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Citizenship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Naturalization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Priority Processing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SSI]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harms-law.com/?p=496</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[USCIS will prioritize the processing of Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, for certain SSI recipients when the applicant’s: SSI benefits will be terminated within 1 year from the date listed on your SSI notice; AND, Form N-400 has been pending for 4 months or more from the date of receipt. If you have any questions about [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>USCIS will prioritize the processing of Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, for certain SSI recipients when the applicant’s:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 60px;">SSI benefits will be terminated within 1 year from the date listed on your SSI notice; AND, Form N-400 has been pending for 4 months or more from the date of receipt.</p>
<p>If you have any questions about the Naturalization process or this priority processing please contact our office at info at harms-law.com.</p>
<p>Please see the link below for instructions for individuals whose SSI benefits are being terminated within 1 year and have applied for OR will apply for citizenship through Form N-400: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=7d84314b55eb1310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&amp;vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/17/496/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prevailing Wage Determinations Suspended</title>
		<link>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/15/prevailing-wage-determinations-suspended/</link>
		<comments>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/15/prevailing-wage-determinations-suspended/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:02:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>melissa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Department of Labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[H-1B]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[backlog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prevailing Wage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harms-law.com/?p=490</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Department of Labor’s National Prevailing Wage Center (NPWC) currently is not issuing Prevailing Wage Determinations (PWDs), nor are they reviewing requests for reconsideration or appeals to the Center Director. The NPWC handles PWDs for the PERM labor certification, H-1B, H-1B1 (Chile/Singapore), H-2B and E-3 programs. As a result of the suspension, prevailing wage requests [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Department of Labor’s National Prevailing Wage Center (NPWC) currently is not issuing Prevailing Wage Determinations (PWDs), nor are they reviewing requests for reconsideration or appeals to the Center Director. The NPWC handles PWDs for the PERM labor certification, H-1B, H-1B1 (Chile/Singapore), H-2B and E-3 programs. As a result of the suspension, prevailing wage requests filed since early June 2011 are still pending. Previously, such requests were routinely processed in 3-4 weeks.  These processes are on hold at this time as the NPWC is required to reissue approximately 4,000 H-2B wage determinations, to reflect the new H-2B wage rates that will apply for H-2B employment on or after September 30, 2011.</p>
<p>It is unclear how long the suspension will last. In the rule published on August 1, DOL indicated that while they will be able to reissue all of the required H-2B wage determinations before October 1, they also stated that DOL could not reissue all 4,000 required H-2B wage determinations before August 31, 2011. DOL has not issued any estimate on when they will resume processing prevailing wages.</p>
<p>The NPWC is now sending out the following revised message regarding prevailing wage determinations:</p>
<p><em>The OFLC National Prevailing Wage Center is experiencing delays in processing prevailing wage determinations as it is currently working to reissue certain determinations to comply with a court order issued June 15, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2011, and a Final Rule will be published on August 1. All Center resources are currently being utilized to comply with this court order. The processing of Prevailing Wage Determinations, redeterminations, and Center Director Reviews has been temporarily suspended. Processing will resume as soon as full compliance with the court order has been completed by OFLC.</em></p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=36315">June 15, 2011 court order</a> stems from the <a href="http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=33270">August 30, 2010 decision</a> in CATA v. Solis, where the district court ordered DOL to promulgate new H-2B prevailing wage regulations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/15/prevailing-wage-determinations-suspended/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>E-Verify FAQ</title>
		<link>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/12/e-verify-faq/</link>
		<comments>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/12/e-verify-faq/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:22:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>melissa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[immigration reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Worksite Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[E-Verify]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[everify]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[I-9]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harms-law.com/?p=485</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The National Conference of State Legistlatures created a FAQ on the E-Verify program.  Here is the link to the FAQ:  http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=13127 The E-Verify program was created as a voluntary Internet-based pilot program to help employers verify the work authorization of new hires.   This program remains voluntary in California but 18 states have an E-Verify requirement.  [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The National Conference of State Legistlatures created a FAQ on the E-Verify program.  Here is the link to the FAQ:  http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=13127</p>
<p>The E-Verify program was created as a voluntary Internet-based pilot program to help employers verify the work authorization of new hires.   This program remains voluntary in California but 18 states have an E-Verify requirement.  In 2011 alone, ten states enacted legislation requiring the use of  E-Verify – Alabama, Florida (executive order), Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia. Eighteen states now have an E-Verify requirement.</p>
<p>The program applies to U.S. citizens and noncitizens. The program is administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in partnership with the Social Security Administration.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/12/e-verify-faq/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>September 2011 Visa Bulletin</title>
		<link>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/11/september-2011-visa-bulletin/</link>
		<comments>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/11/september-2011-visa-bulletin/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:07:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>melissa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[State Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Visa Bulletin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harms-law.com/?p=481</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The new visa bulletin is out. Family based petitions are backlogged, with the most recent date at December 2008.  Employment-based categories are as follows:  EB-1 is current for all countries  EB-2 is current, except for India (April 2007) and China (April 2007)  EB-3 is at November 2005 for all countries, except for India (July 2002), China [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The new visa bulletin is out.</p>
<p>Family based petitions are backlogged, with the most recent date at December 2008. </p>
<p>Employment-based categories are as follows:</p>
<ul>
<li> EB-1 is current for all countries</li>
<li> EB-2 is current, except for India (April 2007) and China (April 2007)</li>
<li> EB-3 is at November 2005 for all countries, except for India (July 2002), China (July 2004), and Mexico  (November 2005)</li>
<li> EB-3 other workers is at August 2005 for all countries, except India (June 2002), China (April 2003) and Mexico (August 2005)</li>
<li> EB-4, religious workers, EB-5, and targeted employment areas and regional centers are all current.</li>
</ul>
<p>The full visa bulletin can be found at http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5542.html</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.harms-law.com/2011/08/11/september-2011-visa-bulletin/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

