Mike D

I'm currently filling out the G-325A to tie in with our 129-F form. Towards the bottom of the page, one of the boxes says

"This form is submitted in connection with application for..."

Then I'm given three options

Naturalization
Status as permanent resident
Other (specify)

I bet you all know what I'm going to ask now? Which one do I use?

Sorry for the rather silly question........

Michael

kariml

I checked other and wrote "I-129F petition for K1 fiance visa"

Noorah101

You got it....check "Other". On mine I wrote "Petition for Alien Fiance". Hope that helps!

Rene

Folinskyinla

Hi:

It really doesn't matter. I would not check "naturalization" -- but either of the other two will kind of fit.

The G-325 is an old form which has not been updated in the 28 years [to the day] that I've been a lawyer.

It is a generic form that used to be used for a lot of things and it has fallen into disuse. In fact, it is no longer required for naturalization.

The reason that it was used was that it was an intergovernment inquiry tool. That's why its in four parts. I don't think it is really used for that purpose any more.

However, it was added to the marriage visa petitions some time back. I believe it was for the purpose of facilitating investigations. But now they photocopy machines and electronic scanning and e-mail and what such. But the form still exists. The photo requirement was added I think to avoid having "ringers" appear at interviews.

Mike D

Thank you very much people.

We're almost done with all the forms, although Jackie (my fiance) has turned into a chain smoker over the last 3 hours.

Matthew Udall

Hey, happy anniversary buddy! That’s 28 years of providing excellent service to the immigration community. My congratulations on that noble accomplishment!

Speaking of the G-325A form, yesterday while getting ready to mail off my first I-129f/K-3 submission, I took a quick read over the I-129f instruction sheet just to make sure I was taking everything into account (on the instructions) that I should.

I noticed for the G-325A, the instructions (on the I-129f) says, “Give a completed and signed form G-325A for you and one for your fiancée. Except for name and signature, you do not have to repeat on the biographic information forms the information given on your I-129f�. (Me again, such repeated information might be things like the petitioner’s and beneficiary’s current address, names of prior spouses or current spouses plus the marriage dates, etc.).

My personal feeling is that submitting an only partially completed G-325A form would be just begging for an RFE despite what these instructions on the I-129f says. Has “anybody� out there followed this instruction and only submitted a partially completed G-325A?

My personal opinion is to fill out the G-325A completely… why take the chance of getting an RFE for this or having the submission kicked back for this.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

We use Immigrant Pro -- and it fills out the entire thing -- but that is a database program.

Matthew Udall

Yeah, me too (use Immigrant Pro).

So, how was the AILA/USCIS/EOIR Christmas party last night (I could not make it this year due to another commitment)? Did you get a chance to hob-knob with some USCIS officers or dance with an immigration judge or two?

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Quite nice. They finally had a room that matched the size of the group! The harpist was playing and the food was good.

Jane was there and she blushed when I addressed her as "Ms. Director". I remember when I was a baby lawyer and she was a newly hired GS-4. I'm glad to see she was appointed. Marty Handman was there. Also, some of the orgnanization managers from examinations branch were there.

IJ's Bank, Gambeacz & Stancill were there. I think IJ Vahid put in an appearance, but I'm not sure, if she did, she didn't stay. I was teasing Judge Bank about his last published court case before he took the bench -- the Singh v Reno case -- and he fervently hopes I get that one reversed some day!! He did confirm something "between the lines" about why the guy was deporable but INS couldn't prove. [No privilege violated, he really did not ask and did not know -- but the "in between the lines" fact was the real reason INS went after the guy and not the abandoment of his green card].

It was good.