New I-129F... plenty of changes

[KULtoATL 1,551]

@Greenbaum posted that there is a new I-129F form in the Philippines forum so thought I'd notify the rest if mods are not moving that thread to the K-1 forum.

 

The latest version is dated 4/10/2017 (10 April 2017). Effective 6/9/2017 (9 June 2017), USCIS will only accept the latest version. In the meantime, applicants can still use the 12/23/2016 (23 December 2016) version.

 

So now they actually ask about the beneficiary's physical address history, employment history and ethnicity/race as well as physical traits.

 

Great thing is that they are now clear about the old Question 34/34a on the in-person meeting. This question is now Questions 53 and 54. Overall, the numberings for all questions have changed so we would have to go through the new form in order to provide assistance or answers to the newer applicants using the new form  

 

https://www.uscis.gov/i-129f

 

[KULtoATL 1,551]

@geowrian If you are going through the form, any other changes that we all should know about? I just went through it quickly while doing my work  The form is even lengthier now. 

[broppy 204]

16 minutes ago, KULtoATL said:

So now they actually ask about the beneficiary's physical address history, employment history and ethnicity/race as well as physical traits.

The ethnicity/race and physical traits in part 4 relate to the petitioner, not the beneficiary.

[KULtoATL 1,551]

17 minutes ago, broppy said:

The ethnicity/race and physical traits in part 4 relate to the petitioner, not the beneficiary.

Thank you for correcting me!

[CubaAndChill 389]

It seems like their making things easier by adding the G325A-type information into the I-129F. Wonder if that'll have any effect on how long processing times are since they just have to go through the I-129F instead of 3 different forms.

[geowrian 22,337]

1 hour ago, KULtoATL said:

@geowrian If you are going through the form, any other changes that we all should know about? I just went through it quickly while doing my work  The form is even lengthier now. 

Lengthier, indeed. At first I thought they were just incorporating the G-325A information into it, but apparently not. The G-325A is still needed according to the USCIS checklist (which is unchanged).

Edit: Or maybe not...? The new I-129F instructions removed the wording to submit the G-325A. But the checklist is unchanged...maybe they just haven't noticed or updated the checklist yet?

 

Changes I've noticed:

• Reorganization of the questions all over. I'm assuming this is to make it easier for them to read/process.
• Part 1
  • Asking for the petitioner's state of birth.
  • Asking if the petitioner's mailing address is the same as their physical address.
  • Asking for the petitioner's address history.
  • Asking for the petitioner's work history.
  • Asking for information about the petitioner's parent(s).
• Part 2
  • Moved requested visa (K-1/K-3) to Part 1. Added question regarding K-3 visa if an I-130 was already filed or not.
  • Asking for the beneficiary's address history.
  • Asking for the beneficiary's work history.
  • Asking for information about the beneficiary's parent(s).
  • It only provides 1 set of questions to list the beneficiary's previous spouse(s). But based on the wording, it sounds like you still need to list all of them, making use of Part 8 (Additional information) sections as needed.
  • It only provides 1 set of questions to list the beneficiary's children. But based on the wording, it sounds like you still need to list all of them, making use of Part 8 (Additional information) sections as needed.
  • Added daytime phone number field for where the beneficiary intends to live. No idea what this means...phone number of who is responsible for that address (i.e. leasing manager, landlord, etc.)?
  • Option to specify N/A for 2 year meeting requirement for spouses (K-3 applicants).
  • Improved wording (IMO) of the 2 year meeting requirements and what evidence to provide.
  • New set of fields for IMB details to be listed.
• Part 3
  • Armed Forces address information removed.
  • Criminal activity questions modified.
    • Asks about the petitioner ever being subject to a temporary or temperament restraining order.
    • Now asks the 3 criminal history questions if the petitioner was ever arrested or convicted. Previously, it only asked if you were convicted of those crimes.
    • Added wording that if you said yes to any of those 3 questions, then the petitioner needs to submit certified copies of all court and police records showing the charges and disposition for every arrest or conviction.
    • Added questions for existence of any criminal activities (arrests, charges, etc.) in any country by the petitioner (barring non-DUI/DWI crimes and minor traffic offenses).
• Part 4 (New): Biographical information about the petitioner
  • I'm assuming this is for analysis only. I wouldn't want to be the person testing this, but I don't think they are legally able to make these questions required. They look like the generic biographical questions used by other government forms so they can run numbers. The wording in the instructions implies they aren't required, but providing it may speed up processing at the biometrics appointment. Personally, i don't know of anybody that was called in for an appointment and to take biometrics to verify the identity of the petitioner, but I guess that's a thing.
• Part 5
  • Added questions about the interpreter and/or preparer, if any, used for filling the form.
  • Added additional preparer contact information questions (phone numbers/email). Removed mailing address fields.
  • Petitioner's signature section moved here (was previously in Part 4).
• Part 6 (New)
  • Interpreter's personal, contact, and certification questions added.
  • Signature of interpreter required.
• Part 7 (New)
  • Preparer's personal, contact, and certification questions added.
  • Signature of preparer required.
  • NOTE: G-28 is still needed for an attorney to represent you. If you do not provide this, they (still) will not deal with the attorney at all until the completed G-28 form is sent in.

 

I'm sure I missed or glanced over things. The most substantial changes in terms of content appears to be regarding criminal activities. The rest is just additional data to send and things moving around.

 

I wonder if they added all the new history fields to help with background checks?

Edited April 11, 2017 by geowrian

[CubaAndChill 389]

Oh wow, so the G325A is still required?? It's just double work on the petitioner and on the person reviewing the case. I wonder why they did it like that.

[KULtoATL 1,551]

Just now, geowrian said:

Lengthier, indeed. At first I thought they were just incorporating the G-325A information into it, but apparently not. The G-325A is still needed according to the USCIS checklist (which is unchanged).

 

Changes I've noted:

• Reorganization of the questions all over. I'm assuming this is to make it easier for them to read/process.
• Part 1
  • Asking for the petitioner's state of birth.
  • Asking if the petitioner's mailing address is the same as their physical address.
  • Asking for the petitioner's address history.
  • Asking for the petitioner's work history.
  • Asking for information about the petitioner's parent(s).
• Part 2
  • Moved requested visa (K-1/K-3) to Part 1. Added question regarding K-3 visa if an I-130 was already filed or not.
  • Asking for the beneficiary's address history.
  • Asking for the beneficiary's work history.
  • Asking for information about the beneficiary's parent(s).
  • It only provides 1 set of questions to list the beneficiary's previous spouse(s). But based on the wording, it sounds like you still need to list all of them, making use of Part 8 (Additional information) sections as needed.
  • It only provides 1 set of questions to list the beneficiary's children. But based on the wording, it sounds like you still need to list all of them, making use of Part 8 (Additional information) sections as needed.
  • Added daytime phone number field for where the beneficiary intends to live. No idea what this means...phone number of who is responsible for that address (i.e. leasing manager, landlord, etc.)?
  • Option to specify N/A for 2 year meeting requirement for spouses (K-3 applicants).
  • Improved wording (IMO) of the 2 year meeting requirements and what evidence to provide.
  • New set of fields for IMB details to be listed.
• Part 3
  • Armed Forces address information removed.
  • Criminal activity questions modified.
    • Asks about the petitioner ever being subject to a temporary or temperament restraining order.
    • Now asks the 3 criminal history questions if the petitioner was ever arrested or convicted. Previously, it only asked if you were convicted of those crimes.
    • Added wording that if you said yes to any of those 3 questions, then the petitioner needs to submit certified copies of all court and police records showing the charges and disposition for every arrest or conviction.
    • Added questions for existence of any criminal activities (arrests, charges, etc.) in any country by the petitioner (barring non-DUI/DWI crimes and minor traffic offenses).
• Part 4 (New): Biographical information about the petitioner
  • I'm assuming this is for analysis only. I wouldn't want to be the person testing this, but I don't think they are legally able to make these questions required. They look like the generic biographical questions used by other government forms so they can run numbers. The wording in the instructions implies they aren't required, but providing it may speed up processing at the biometrics appointment. Personally, i don't know of anybody that was called in for an appointment and to take biometrics to verify the identity of the petitioner, but I guess that's a thing.
• Part 5
  • Added questions about the interpreter and/or preparer, if any, used for filling the form.
  • Added additional preparer contact information questions (phone numbers/email). Removed mailing address fields.
  • Petitioner's signature section moved here (was previously in Part 4).
• Part 6 (New)
  • Interpreter's personal, contact, and certification questions added.
  • Signature of interpreter required.
• Part 7 (New)
  • Preparer's personal, contact, and certification questions added.
  • Signature of preparer required.
  • NOTE: G-28 is still needed for an attorney to represent you. If you do not provide this, they (still) will not deal with the attorney at all until the completed G-28 form is sent in.

 

I'm sure I missed or glanced over things. The most substantial changes in terms of content appears to be regarding criminal activities. The rest is just additional data to send and things moving around.

 

I wonder if they added all the new history fields to help with background checks?

Thank you so much for sharing your findings! Although the new form is lengthier, I think things are a lot more clearer now for applicants when completing the form. On top of that, you might be onto something concerning the background checks. 

 

I'm not trying to start an argument or controversy but out of curiosity, do you think Part 4 is a bit of an unnecessary profiling? Just curious.

[geowrian 22,337]

1 minute ago, CubaAndChill said:

Oh wow, so the G325A is still required?? It's just double work on the petitioner and on the person reviewing the case. I wonder why they did it like that.

I'm...uncertain. See my edit in bold. It's not listed in the instructions anymore as a required form. But the checklist still lists it. My instinct says it's not required, but I'm not confident enough to suggest to others not to provide it.

[KULtoATL 1,551]

Just now, geowrian said:

I'm...uncertain. See my edit in bold. It's not listed in the instructions anymore as a required form. But the checklist still lists it. My instinct says it's not required, but I'm not confident enough to suggest to others not to provide it.

Maybe they haven't updated the checklist  If they end up removing the G-325A, that would be wonderful because that would mean one less form to be completed by the new applicants.

[geowrian 22,337]

7 minutes ago, KULtoATL said:

Thank you so much for sharing your findings! Although the new form is lengthier, I think things are a lot more clearer now for applicants when completing the form. On top of that, you might be onto something concerning the background checks. 

 

I'm not trying to start an argument or controversy but out of curiosity, do you think Part 4 is a bit of an unnecessary profiling? Just curious.

Agreed. It's easier to read, which I think should help. The instructions aren't needed as much to figure out what you need to do...just to answer questions with the form. Previously, you *had* to read the instructions to know everything that needed to be sent, which I've seen cause RFEs and rejections because people never read the instructions... On the other hand, more fields and a lengthier form is also more room for errors and/or people freaking out about entering a minor mistake.

 

I think (theory time!) they've been having issues with background checks due to people having the same name. This should help differentiate things....hopefully.

 

Not really...like I noted, it's likely there just for some management to run numbers. I *hope* it won't be abused to discriminate (deny/scrutinize/whatever) certain types of petitioners.

Edited April 11, 2017 by geowrian

[KULtoATL 1,551]

Just now, geowrian said:

Agreed. It's easier to read, which I think should help. The instructions aren't needed as much to figure out what you need to do...just to answer questions with the form. Previously, you *had* to read the instructions to know everything that needed to be sent, which I've seen cause RFEs and rejections because people never read the instructions... On the other hand, more fields and a lengthier form is also more room for errors and/or people freaking out about entering a minor mistake.

 

I think (theory time!) they've been having issues with background checks due to people having the same name. This should help differentiate things....hopefully.

 

Not really...like I noted, it's likely there just for some management to run numbers. I *hope* it won't be abused to discriminate 9deny/scrutinize/whatever) certain types of petitioners.

Now I don't feel as bad that I have only outlined the in-person meetings in the older I-129F Questions 34 and 34a. Because they were indeed asking about in-person meetings as reflected in Questions 53 and 54 presently 

 

Definitely hope it is to facilitate the background checks and not to be used to discriminate. Again, I do understand though they need to make things work more efficiently so that they can process all submissions quicker instead of the long processing times.

[USC1961 251]

I also noticed another change in the new I-129f instructions

 

Quote

Answer all questions fully and accurately. If a question does not apply to you (for example, if you have never been
married and the question asks “Provide the name of your current spouse”), type or print “N/A,” unless otherwise
directed. If your answer to a question which requires a numeric response is zero or none (for example, “How many
children do you have” or “How many times have you departed the United States”), type or print “None,” unless
otherwise directed.

So I wonder, I'm about to mail my I-129f tomorrow.  Will I get an rfe for following the old instructions on the old form?

[KULtoATL 1,551]

1 minute ago, Cruise77 said:

I also noticed another change in the new I-129f instructions

 

So I wonder, I'm about to mail my I-129f tomorrow.  Will I get an rfe for following the old instructions on the old form?

I wonder the same thing too. Maybe a safer choice to use the new form?  

[USC1961 251]

Just now, KULtoATL said:

I wonder the same thing too. Maybe a safer choice to use the new form?  

Nah, I'm not redoing all the work I already did.  I'll just call and ask them.