jeffreyhy

I said, "with the attitude that you are showing". I did not say that your attitude was 'bad' in the sense that you were being mean or rude. I repeat Ian's comment about reading what was actually written.

Later in the same post I used what was, I think, probably a better phrase to describe my point - "your way of thinking".

No doubt, there are two ways to look at your wife's situation. Your way, that she's moved here and is living here already, now we just have to get the US government to accept the fact, and the way that people have been telling you might look a lot better to the officials you have to deal with, she's here as a visitor but has changed her mind and would like to stay as an immigrant. Your way may irritate people who don't like to be told what they have to do, and since those are the people whose approval you need you don't want to risk doing that.

On the other hand, since the law is written to say that a person who comes in as a visitor and who changes their mind and would like to immigrate may apply (may ask) to immigrate, isn't that the better way to present the situation?

While the underlying facts may be the same, how those facts are presented can make things potentially harder or easier - why insist on harder?

Regards, JEff

S Folinsky

Rene, Jeff & Ian:

Pedantic Stuart is quite amused at the discussion of terminology.

I posted those two references to the Immigration & Nationality Act for a reason. As you know, I can be more pedantic about immigration than anyone else here on the forum.

I have several former clients who have had grants of "withholding of removal" and "Convention Against Torture" relief. Otherwise, they have formal orders of removal against them. They are not "lawful permanent residents" but do have "residence" in the United States. By all definitions, they "live" here -- and under color of law at that.

I have no trouble in the case of a combined I-130/485 application for the applicant to say that "I now reside in the United States." In fact, in the normal case, "residence" is almost a prerequisite to applying for "adjustment" to "lawful permanent residence."

jeffreyhy

Thanks for the additional explanation to your earlier post. Got it now!

Regards, JEff

Cadi24

Thank you all for giving me a better understanding of everything. From now on I'll just say that my wife is currently residing with me. It seems more appropriate and less confusing.

Noorah101

Ditto, thanks for the detailed explanation.

Rene

Noorah101

Good idea. I apologize if it seemed we were jumping on you about this, when it seems to be a non-issue after all.

Don't hesitate to ask other questions you have about the AOS process or paperwork.

Rene

Cadi24

No need to apologize but thank you I do have a few questions about Form I-485.

1. C/O (in care of)

Can my wife leave that blank or should she put my name?

2. Give your name exactly as it appears on your Form I-94

Since she does not have an I-94 can she simply put 'No I-94' or must she put her full name anyway?

3. Nonimmigrant Visa # - Consulate Where Visa Was Issued - Date Visa Issued

This doesn't apply to her so we can use N/A for all three lines, right? Or should we put None under 'Nonimmigrant Visa #'?

Noorah101

She can leave that part blank.

"No I-94" is a very good answer.

I would say put "None".

USCIS will see that she's Canadian and will understand why she's lacking a visa and I-94.

Rene

jeffreyhy

I like to be as explicit yet concise, so i would answer all of these questions with:
No [I-94][visa] - Canadian

There's room, and that way the reader does not have to think for a minute before saying "oh, yeah, from Canada". Or, if a bit under the weather that day, say "huh?"

Regards, JEff

S Folinsky

When I was in practice, I would put in either "not applicable" or "none" for the name on the I-94. This is one of those rare situations where either one is just fine. [FWIW, I soured on "na" after a bad experience regarding an application by a Korean client named "Na."]

For the non-immigrant visa # and consulate issued -- I would put in "none" with reference to "Canadian -- no visa."

Cadi24

Thank you, Rene/Jeff/Folinsky.

We're now tackling Form G-325A. I'm aware both my wife and I have to file one each. Here are my questions:

For my wife...

1. Applicant's employment last 5 years.

The first given row has "Present Time" already written under "to" but my wife is not working at the moment so can we skip that first row and fill in the second row and so on? If yes, should we leave that first row blank or should we put N/A?

For myself...

1. Applicant's last address outside the US of more than 1 year.

Since I've never had one ... Do I put None? N/A?

2. Last occupation abroad if not shown above.

Again, can I just put None? N/A?

Noorah101

In the first line, I'd put "unemployed" and then fill in the "from" date. Then continue on the second line with her previous employment.

"None".

Yes.

Rene

S Folinsky

I've noted in the past that the G-325 is an obsolecent form which remains almost by force of habit. Its use was formerly quite common and it remains only for the I-130 and the I-485. I doubt that Government people even read it. When I was in practice, I found that incomplete G-325's caused no problem.

As lot of people obsess unnecessarily over the form.

jeffreyhy

As you may have deduced from my last post, I'm not a fan of giving potentially ambiguous answers such as 'N/A', or even 'none', when it only takes a very few words to give an unambiguous answer. Such as, 'Never lived outside USA' or 'Never worked abroad'. You wrote it here in your post, why can't you write it on the form?

With respect to the G-325A specifically, the personal experience provided by Mr.F is comforting. However, it pays to develop good habits with respect to answering questions because the same questions appear on other forms that may not be so forgiving.

Regards, JEff

S Folinsky

I just want to state that the information on the G-325 must be correct. However, if it is incomplete, it is often "no harm, no foul" type.