<?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>jnimmigration.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ynfirm.com/blog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ynfirm.com/blog</link>
	<description>Legal Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:12:48 +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>H-1B Cap Count (As of 10/7/2011)</title>
		<link>http://ynfirm.com/blog/h-1b/h-1b-cap-count-as-of-1072011/</link>
		<comments>http://ynfirm.com/blog/h-1b/h-1b-cap-count-as-of-1072011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:12:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Julie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[H-1B]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ynfirm.com/blog/?p=329</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As of October 7, 2011, USCIS has counted 41,000 cap eligible petitions under the Regular H-1B Cap and 19,100 cap eligible petitions under the Master&#8217;s Exemption H-1B Cap]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As of October 7, 2011, USCIS has counted 41,000 cap eligible petitions under the Regular H-1B Cap and 19,100 cap eligible petitions under the Master&#8217;s Exemption H-1B Cap.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ynfirm.com/blog/h-1b/h-1b-cap-count-as-of-1072011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DOJ and Maine Wendy franchise Settle Immigration-Employment Discrimination</title>
		<link>http://ynfirm.com/blog/uncategorized/doj-and-maine-wendy-franchise-settle-immigration-employment-discrimination/</link>
		<comments>http://ynfirm.com/blog/uncategorized/doj-and-maine-wendy-franchise-settle-immigration-employment-discrimination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 May 2011 21:46:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Julie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment authorization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wendy's]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ynfirm.com/blog/?p=323</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The DOJ reached a settlement agreement with Restwend LLC, the corporate owner of several Wendy’s restaurants in Maine.  The investigation alleged that at least one of its restaurants engaged in employment discrimination by refusing to hire individuals believed to be non-U.S. citizens even though they had legal work authorization. Based on the DOJ&#8217;s findings, since at least ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="color: #888888; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The DOJ reached a settlement agreement with Restwend LLC, the corporate owner of several Wendy</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">’</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">s restaurants in Maine.  The investigation alleged that at least one of its restaurants engaged in employment discrimination by refusing to hire individuals believed to be non-U.S. citizens even though they had legal work authorization.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #888888; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Based on the DOJ&#8217;s</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">findings, since at least 2009 this particular Wendy</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">’</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">s instituted a policy of refusing to hire work authorized individuals whom it believed to be non-U.S. citizens.  However, the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits discrimination in hiring against authorized workers on the basis of citizenship status.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #888888; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Restwend has agreed to pay $14,500 in back pay, plus interest, to a victim of its citizens-only policy, plus $3,200 in civil penalties. </span></span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="color: #888888; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Generally, the Civil Rights Division</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">’</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination provision of the INA, which protects work authorized individuals against discrimination in hiring, firing and recruitment or referral for a fee on the basis of citizenship status and national origin. The INA also protects all work-authorized individuals from discrimination in the employment.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ynfirm.com/blog/uncategorized/doj-and-maine-wendy-franchise-settle-immigration-employment-discrimination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DOL PERM Processing Times</title>
		<link>http://ynfirm.com/blog/perm/dol-perm-processing-times/</link>
		<comments>http://ynfirm.com/blog/perm/dol-perm-processing-times/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:14:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Julie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[PERM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ynfirm.com/blog/?p=319</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As of April 25,  2011, DOL&#8217;s processing times for PERM filings are as follows: Analyst Reviews:  March  2011 Audits:  December 2009 Reconsideration Requests to CO:  September 2008 Government Errors:  Current. &#038;nbsp]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As of April 25,  2011, DOL&#8217;s processing times for PERM filings are as follows:</p>
<p>Analyst Reviews:  March  2011</p>
<p>Audits:  December 2009</p>
<p>Reconsideration Requests to CO:  September 2008</p>
<p>Government Errors:  Current.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ynfirm.com/blog/perm/dol-perm-processing-times/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Effective Today, April 28, 2011 &#8211; DHS Removes Certain Countries From NSEERS LIST</title>
		<link>http://ynfirm.com/blog/uncategorized/effective-today-april-28-2011-dhs-removes-certain-countries-from-nseers-list1/</link>
		<comments>http://ynfirm.com/blog/uncategorized/effective-today-april-28-2011-dhs-removes-certain-countries-from-nseers-list1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:02:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Julie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NSEERS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ynfirm.com/blog/?p=314</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Effective 4/28/2011, DHS is  removing the following countries from, and relieving nonimmigrant nationals or citizens of the following countries from compliance with, the special registration procedures under the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS): Afghanistan Algeria Bahrain, Bangladesh Egypt Eritrea Indonesia Iran Iraq Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Libya Morocco North Korea Oman Pakistan Qatar Saudi Arabia ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="main">
<div id="contentwrapper">
<div id="content">
<div id="genBody">
<p>Effective 4/28/2011, DHS is  removing the following countries from, and relieving nonimmigrant  nationals or citizens of the following countries from compliance with, the  special registration procedures under the National Security Entry-Exit  Registration System (NSEERS):</p>
<ul>
<li>Afghanistan</li>
<li>Algeria</li>
<li> Bahrain,</li>
<li>Bangladesh</li>
<li>Egypt</li>
<li>Eritrea</li>
<li>Indonesia</li>
<li>Iran</li>
<li>Iraq</li>
<li>Jordan</li>
<li>Kuwait</li>
<li>Lebanon</li>
<li>Libya</li>
<li>Morocco</li>
<li>North  Korea</li>
<li>Oman</li>
<li>Pakistan</li>
<li>Qatar</li>
<li>Saudi Arabia</li>
<li>Somalia</li>
<li>Sudan</li>
<li>Syria</li>
<li>Tunisia</li>
<li>United Arab Emirates</li>
<li>Yemen.</li>
</ul>
<p>NSEERS was initiated  in 2002  to provide the Federal government with records of the arrival and  departure of nonimmigrant aliens from specific countries designated by the  Attorney General.\1\ The NSEERS regulations require nonimmigrant aliens who are  nationals or citizens of countries designated by the Secretary of Homeland  Security, upon consultation with the Secretary of State, to comply with special  registration requirements, including providing fingerprints, a photograph, and  any additional information required by DHS to DHS officials at the time the  nonimmigrant applies for admission at a U.S. port of entry.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p><!-- end of #content --></p>
</div>
<p><!-- end of #contentwrapper --></p>
</div>
<p><!-- end of #main --></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ynfirm.com/blog/uncategorized/effective-today-april-28-2011-dhs-removes-certain-countries-from-nseers-list1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama criticizes Georgia Bill</title>
		<link>http://ynfirm.com/blog/legislation/obama-criticizes-georgia-bill/</link>
		<comments>http://ynfirm.com/blog/legislation/obama-criticizes-georgia-bill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:32:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Julie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Immigration Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigration reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-immigrant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal immigrant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ynfirm.com/blog/?p=312</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[President Obama stated his opposition to a bill in Georgia, similar to the anti-immgration bill struck down in Arizona, that would allow law enforcement to investigate the immigration status of criminal suspects. &#8220;It is a mistake for states to try to do this piecemeal. We can&#8217;t have 50 different immigration laws around the country. Arizona tried this ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>President Obama stated his opposition to a bill in Georgia, similar to the anti-immgration bill struck down in Arizona, that would allow law enforcement to investigate the immigration status of criminal suspects.</p>
<p>&#8220;It is a mistake for states to try to do this piecemeal. We can&#8217;t have 50 different immigration laws around the country. Arizona tried this and a federal court already struck them down,&#8221; Obama told WSB-TV in an interview taped Tuesday.</p>
<p>To help the Georgia bill overcome the legal challenges that halted Arizona&#8217;s bill, Georgia legislatures removed the &#8220;reasonable suspicion&#8221; aspect of the bill. In its place, Georgia police can perform an immigration check if the criminal suspect cannot produce any form of identification or give basic details that could help an officer verify their identity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ynfirm.com/blog/legislation/obama-criticizes-georgia-bill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bogus Chinese-American militia marched in parades</title>
		<link>http://ynfirm.com/blog/immigration-fraud/bogus-chinese-american-militia-marched-in-parades/</link>
		<comments>http://ynfirm.com/blog/immigration-fraud/bogus-chinese-american-militia-marched-in-parades/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:54:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Julie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Immigration Fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[green card]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal immigrant]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ynfirm.com/blog/?p=309</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Californian authorities arrested the so-called &#8220;supreme commander&#8221; of the U.S. Army/Military Special Forces Reserve unit and charged him with duping Chinese immigrants into thinking they had enlisted in the U.S. armed forces. Yupeng Deng, 51, recruited 100 unwitting Chinese immigrants from Northern to Southern California and even Georgia to enlist in his Southern California group.  The ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Californian authorities arrested the so-called &#8220;supreme commander&#8221; of the U.S. Army/Military Special Forces Reserve unit and charged him with duping Chinese immigrants into thinking they had enlisted in the U.S. armed forces.</p>
<p>Yupeng Deng, 51, recruited 100 unwitting Chinese immigrants from Northern to Southern California and even Georgia to enlist in his Southern California group.  The scam required Chinese immigrants to pay several hundred dollars to enlist into the bogus military with the idea that it would help improve their chances of obtaining green cards and U.S. citizenship.</p>
<p>Deng staged an office in Temple City to mimic a real recruiting station with a rug featuring the Army seal. Recruits paid $300 to $400 to join, trained using mock weapons and were issued ID cards they were told could help them beat traffic tickets or earn airfare discounts.</p>
<p>There has been a host of bogus military-style groups catering to Chinese immigrants in the San Gabriel Valley northeast of Los Angeles where members pay dues, dress up in fatigues and promote American patriotism by marching in parades and attending other events.</p>
<p>The case highlights the vulnerability of immigrants desperately seeking to belong in a new country and naive to the norms of a society.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ynfirm.com/blog/immigration-fraud/bogus-chinese-american-militia-marched-in-parades/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Georgia Joins other Republican led States in passing Arizona-style immigration law</title>
		<link>http://ynfirm.com/blog/legislation/georgia-joins-other-republican-led-states-in-passing-arizona-style-immigration-law/</link>
		<comments>http://ynfirm.com/blog/legislation/georgia-joins-other-republican-led-states-in-passing-arizona-style-immigration-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:02:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Julie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Immigration Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigration reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[E-Verify]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal immigrant]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ynfirm.com/blog/?p=306</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A immigration bill passed late Thursday night by the Republican-dominated Georgia House and Senate.  This bill, similar to the Arizona&#8217;s, authorizes law enforcement to question suspects in certain criminal investigations about their immigration status. It also authorizes long prison terms for those who use fake documents to get a job and punishes people who transport ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A immigration bill passed late Thursday night by the Republican-dominated Georgia House and Senate.  This bill, similar to the Arizona&#8217;s, authorizes law enforcement to question suspects in certain criminal investigations about their immigration status. It also authorizes long prison terms for those who use fake documents to get a job and punishes people who transport illegal immigrants during the commission of a crime. </p>
<p>The new law would also require private employers to check the immigration status of newly hired workers E-Verify federal database.  The new bill exempts small businesses from the E-Verify requirements and gives the businesses required to use it a 30-day grace period to correct good-faith violations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ynfirm.com/blog/legislation/georgia-joins-other-republican-led-states-in-passing-arizona-style-immigration-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Legislation to Secure Immigration for Same Sex Couples</title>
		<link>http://ynfirm.com/blog/legislation/legislation-to-secure-immigration-for-same-sex-couples/</link>
		<comments>http://ynfirm.com/blog/legislation/legislation-to-secure-immigration-for-same-sex-couples/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:31:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Julie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[immigration reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comprehensive reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[green card]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[homosexual]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal immigrant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lesbian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[same sex]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ynfirm.com/blog/?p=303</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[House Democrats on Thursday re-introduced the Uniting American Families Act, legislation that would grant same-sex couples the same rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples under U.S. immigration law.  Under current law, one member of a married couple may sponsor their partner for U.S. citizenship, but same-sex couples cannot.   Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the ranking Democrat on ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>House Democrats on Thursday re-introduced the Uniting American Families Act, legislation that would grant same-sex couples the same rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples under U.S. immigration law.  Under current law, one member of a married couple may sponsor their partner for U.S. citizenship, but same-sex couples cannot.  </p>
<p>Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution has been working on the issue for over a decade.  However, Democrats worry the bill is unlikely to pass the Republican-led House.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ynfirm.com/blog/legislation/legislation-to-secure-immigration-for-same-sex-couples/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arizona&#8217;s Anti-Immigrant Law Ruled Unconstitutional</title>
		<link>http://ynfirm.com/blog/legislation/arizonas-anti-immigrant-law-ruled-unconstitutional/</link>
		<comments>http://ynfirm.com/blog/legislation/arizonas-anti-immigrant-law-ruled-unconstitutional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:39:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Julie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Immigration Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal immigrant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigration reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ynfirm.com/blog/?p=301</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided today to uphold a preliminary injunction against Arizona’s anti-immigrant legislation, SB 1070. The court denied the state’s appeal of a federal district court’s July decision that prevented segments of the law from going into effect due to U.S. Constitutional violations.  One of the most controversial provision of SB 1070 requires ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided today to uphold a preliminary injunction against Arizona’s anti-immigrant legislation, SB 1070. The court denied the state’s appeal of a federal district court’s July decision that prevented segments of the law from going into effect due to U.S. Constitutional violations. </p>
<p>One of the most controversial provision of SB 1070 requires state and local police to ask for proof of immigration status from every individual stopped for a traffic violation or other civil infraction if they have a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the person is in the U.S. in violation of the immigration law.  The Ninth Circuit decision confirms the notion that the federal government has the exclusive power to regulate and enforce immigration laws.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ynfirm.com/blog/legislation/arizonas-anti-immigrant-law-ruled-unconstitutional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>May 2011 Visa Bulletin</title>
		<link>http://ynfirm.com/blog/green-card-employment-based/may-2011-visa-bulletin/</link>
		<comments>http://ynfirm.com/blog/green-card-employment-based/may-2011-visa-bulletin/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:10:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Julie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Green Card - Employment-based]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Visa Bulletin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of State]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eb-1]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EB-2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EB-3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[priority date]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USCIS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ynfirm.com/blog/?p=292</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Department of State has released the  May 2011 Visa Bulletin.  Here are the highlights for employment-based categories: EB-2 for India moves up to July 1, 2006. EB-2 for China remains at August 1, 2006. Eb-2 for all other counties is current. EB-3 for India moves up to April 15, 2002. EB-3 for China moves up to April 15, 2004 EB-3 for Mexico ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Department of State has released the  May 2011 Visa Bulletin.  Here are the highlights for employment-based categories:</p>
<ul>
<li>EB-2 for India moves up to July 1, 2006.</li>
<li>EB-2 for China remains at August 1, 2006.</li>
<li>Eb-2 for all other counties is current.</li>
<li>EB-3 for India moves up to April 15, 2002.</li>
<li>EB-3 for China moves up to April 15, 2004</li>
<li>EB-3 for Mexico moves up to September 8, 2004</li>
<li>EB-3 for all other countries moves up to  August 22, 2005.</li>
</ul>
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="559">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="84"><strong>Employment- Based</strong></td>
<td colspan="2" width="86"><strong>All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed</strong></td>
<td width="62"><strong>CHINA</strong></td>
<td width="67"><strong>INDIA</strong></td>
<td width="66"><strong>MEXICO</strong></td>
<td width="90"><strong>PHILIPPINES</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">1st</td>
<td width="81">C</td>
<td colspan="2" width="67">C</td>
<td width="67">C</td>
<td width="66">C</td>
<td width="90">C</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">2nd</td>
<td width="81">C</td>
<td colspan="2" width="67">01AUG06</td>
<td width="67">01JUL06</td>
<td width="66">C</td>
<td width="90">C</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">3rd</td>
<td width="81">22AUG05</td>
<td colspan="2" width="67">15APR 04</td>
<td width="67">15 APR 02</td>
<td width="66">08SEP04</td>
<td width="90">22AUG05</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">Other Workers</td>
<td width="81">08SEP03</td>
<td colspan="2" width="67">22 APR03</td>
<td width="67">15 APR 02</td>
<td width="66">08SEP03</td>
<td width="90">08SEP03</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">4th</td>
<td width="81">C</td>
<td colspan="2" width="67">C</td>
<td width="67">C</td>
<td width="66">C</td>
<td width="90">C</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">Certain Religious Workers</td>
<td width="81">C</td>
<td colspan="2" width="67">C</td>
<td width="67">C</td>
<td width="66">C</td>
<td width="90">C</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">5th</td>
<td width="81">C</td>
<td colspan="2" width="67">C</td>
<td width="67">C</td>
<td width="66">C</td>
<td width="90">C</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">Targeted Employment Areas/ Regional Centers</td>
<td width="81">C</td>
<td colspan="2" width="67">C</td>
<td width="67">C</td>
<td width="66">C</td>
<td width="90">C</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">5th Pilot Programs</td>
<td width="81">C</td>
<td colspan="2" width="67">C</td>
<td width="67">C</td>
<td width="66">C</td>
<td width="90">C</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ynfirm.com/blog/green-card-employment-based/may-2011-visa-bulletin/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

