blahblahblog

The impending divorce has no bearing in your abandoned GC. Immigration law isn't about justice or fairness, it's about regulating who can come into the country. It's a dry and brutal bureaucracy that keeps new couples separated several months and families separated for years. If you get to an IJ and are able to pull his heart strings, he would still not be able to help you in any way because you abandoned your GC and your husband will not sponsor you to get a new one. In life, bad things happened and I'm sorry to say, they happened to you. You must accept this.
You could try a hail mary and use your GC to get in the country but, as Sandra said, chances are you may even end up detained while waiting for a hearing and deported. If you want to go down this route, make sure you get a very good lawyer that specializes in this sort of cases. Be prepared to pay a bunch of money, hear from several lawyers that your case is hopeless and come out with nothing. You could also give up on the GC, get to the US with your VWP, get a family lawyer, settle/negotiate/litigate your divorce and maybe even try to get a job offer in the field you want to work. I think this is a better use of your energy, time and money.
I agree that you should get legal representation during divorce proceedings and focus on that, not on the Green Card. While he can get a divorce for whatever reason, the benefits post divorce (alimony, partition of property) may hinge on the reasons for divorce. If he claims she abandoned him, he may be able to avoid paying alimony, for example.

Just to make it clear: I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, is just my understanding of things.
1) I don't know if having two residences at the same time in the form makes sense at first, but it makes sense after you explain it. So if you do that, make sure you have a letter explaining why the odd answer in the form. I wouldn't do it because you're asking USCIS to make a judgment call. I would just keep information as simple as possible.
2) Yeah, if interview happens before you move in together they may ask what's going on. So have evidence explaining why. But don't stress too much over that. Remember that they'll look at the overall case, not focus on living apart as reason for denial despite all other evidence in favor. If your marriage is legit, you'll for sure have enough supporting evidence to prove it, despite the fact that you're living apart.

The way I see it, you need to be truthful in all your forms and statements. If you're both living in different places temporarily, then use the two different addresses. You can use your address as her permanent address and her current one as her temporary address if that's her intention and perception of the situation. But from the point of view of USCIS the red flag raised is the same: you guys are living in different states (her claim that her PA residence is temporary doesn't matter).
I would add a letter explaining the situation (since it's unusual). I'd also add some additional evidence of bona fide marriage (see items E-J in form I-130 instructions, page 3). But you don't have to The bar you have to clear right now is pretty low. The actual questions will come in the interview.
Re: interview: it's not normal for a recently married couple to live in different places but it's also not completely unheard of, specially due to job/school requirements. Gather evidence of what you're saying (copies of bus tickets, school transcripts, work contract, pictures and affidavits of people that know you see each other regularly) and take it with you in the interview. Have more evidence that you're indeed married (trips, affidavits, finances, etc). In any case, it seems she'll move in with you in July which will likely be before the interview. At that point you'll have the best evidence that counters the early separation question: you moved in together.

Do you have any friends that work in the sector that you guys are looking for. I found out that having cover letters and resumes checked by someone used to the american job culture helps a lot. If you're not getting interviews or call backs, you should work on your resumes and cover letters.

Do you have any friends that work in the sector that you guys are looking for. I found out that having cover letters and resumes checked by someone used to the american job culture helps a lot. If you're not getting interviews or call backs, you should work on your resumes and cover letters.

The lawyer would actually get an Advisory Opinion through the website anyway so that would be a waste of money. If you can't print in your computer, go to a Kinko's and print it there. If you believe you're not subject to 212(e) you don't have to get the advisory opinion, though it's nice to have in case of RFEs down the road.

Take it slow. Give yourself some time to heal and stay separated for a while. Stabilize yourself around your new life and your new job. Develop a social circle that don't include her or her parents. I was in a similar situation (ending relationship after moving countries) and the hardest part was that everyone I knew is related to the ex, so I kept being dragged to her drama.
If anything, she needs time herself to figure out what she truly wants, and show that with actions, not words. Believe me, one day you'll be laughing at how ridiculous the whole situation was.

A normal person could reasonably assume that simply having a marriage certificate provides several benefits. It works with HR benefits, and it works with the IRS. We know it doesn't work that way with USCIS. But it's because if it did, there would be a high volume of fraud and homeland security vulnerability. So there are a lot of super odd procedures with ridiculously long waiting times which makes all of us miserable.
But, guys, this Kafka nightmare is a *consequence*, not a *necessity*. I feel the VJ community suffers from a crazy Stockholm syndrome. Just because things sucked during your immigration process, it doesn't mean people that assumed it would be easy are fraudsters, scum of the earth that deserve to live apart for a year.
I mean, look at what you are saying. You have no sympathy for a bona fide, missionary couple that went on a honeymoon in Mexico and the wife was deported.
THIS.

A normal person could reasonably assume that simply having a marriage certificate provides several benefits. It works with HR benefits, and it works with the IRS. We know it doesn't work that way with USCIS. But it's because if it did, there would be a high volume of fraud and homeland security vulnerability. So there are a lot of super odd procedures with ridiculously long waiting times which makes all of us miserable.
But, guys, this Kafka nightmare is a *consequence*, not a *necessity*. I feel the VJ community suffers from a crazy Stockholm syndrome. Just because things sucked during your immigration process, it doesn't mean people that assumed it would be easy are fraudsters, scum of the earth that deserve to live apart for a year.
I mean, look at what you are saying. You have no sympathy for a bona fide, missionary couple that went on a honeymoon in Mexico and the wife was deported.
THIS.

I rarely comment on this sort of thing, but here's my $0.02 on the matter. I don't know the groom personally (though I do know some people from Ely).
- It's common folk knowledge that one acquires automatic citizenship upon marriage to a USC. The fact that this isn't really true isn't very well known, and one needs to be a specific type of person to want to research this and seek out any problems. If not for my inherently cynical and skeptical nature, I would have never discovered this site or done some research into all the 'worst case' scenarios. A newly returned LDS missionary hardly has this kind of outlook. People are constantly in shock when either me or my fiancee tell them about the K1 process (-- even more counter intuitive; one would assume marriage would hold stronger evidence of a genuine relationship that being engaged).
- This hardly sounds like the case of deliberate fraud. There's no huge age gap in age, culture, or financial background between the bride and groom. They both speak the same language (he speaks Russian) and share the same religious background (which is fairly ingrained into their lifestyle).
Unfortunately this sounds like two young, doe-eyed love bugs whose only crime was that they believed in fairy tales. The movies never tell you about the USCIS and the excruciatingly painful process involved to bring a foreign spouse/fiancee into the US. I'm not saying they should be able to skip the entire immigration process (it's there for a reason), but they do have my sympathies.

Did you receive the notice of receipt from USCIS? While not strictly allowed by law, people say that USCIS accepts AOS petitions with pending I-612 based on No Object Statement. I forgot the links but you can find it yourself via google. I've heard people have been succesful doing that, but it isn't recommended unless you have a reason to hurry. USCIS can deny the I-485 and then you'll be out $1000.
I'm doing this right now, assisted by our lawyer. The I-485 form asks if you have finished the waiver process and you say "No". Along with the AOS, we added a copy of the I-797 notice for the I-612 and a letter explaining the situation. We're still early in the process so I can't tell for sure if this will work, but so far we didn't get any denials or RFEs.

I already spoke about the distinctions between the Nazi symbols and the confederate ones.
You'd actually be surprised with my understanding of the history and social structures of the US east of the Mississipi. I'm not super new to this country and I have lived in the east coast, the midwest, south and now texas. I also go out and try to learn as much as I can from the places I live by interacting with locals, roaming tiny museums and joining quirky local festivals. I actually met quite a few of the southerners and got an actual understanding of their relationships with the confederate war and its outcome. The confederate flag doesn't represent hatred of black people. It represents their hatred of the Yankees, the "godless liberals" that like to mock their christianism and their moonshine and their NASCAR in SNL sketches. Are they racists? Oh yes. But not more racist a good number of the upstate Massachusetts folks I interacted with (I'm not white and I can feel these things). And these Massachusetts folks had no confederate flags.
Any way, I clearly spent way too much time with this already. You can stay there contemplating the world from your glorious "bubble of enlightenment education and critical thinking".

I am 100% of the opinion that people should be able to fly Mexican flags without reprieve. I find that motley crew just as idiots as the current one that wants to throw all of the confederate flags into the memory hole.
Your ignorance of the complexity of symbols and meaning also is high on display here. Most of the symbols with a history acquire their meaning from context. Because you live in your own bubble, you assume that the meaning of the confederate flag that every human has is the same as yours, the racist one. Are you remotely aware that the swastika is a religious symbol in indian and chinese cultures? Are the swastika in Hindu temples a symbol of white supremacy?
Your "fishing in a barrel" comment is shameful. I'm glad you're happy you "won" an argument on the internet.
I don't know if you really don't get it or you're intentionally obtuse. Yes, independence war memorials should have British flags and some actually do. Maybe this is news for you and you'll start a movement to remove all the UK flags? I'm not saying "let's have confederate flags everywhere", I'm saying "let the flags that fly in an appropriate context stand".
And you really have no idea what a flag in a memorial obelisk is celebrating? Here's a hint: there are families in those regions that have great grandfathers who died in one of these wars. They like the idea of preserving those historical sites and like memorials for their long gone relatives. And yes, they were fighting for a wrong headed cause. But guess what, most of these guys were just poor and young folks that happened to live in the south.

There is glorifying, then there is acknowledging and then there is throwing things in the memory hole. And denazification laws are closer to the latter. I'm not saying they should preserve every single swastika, but they went out of their way to remove every possible symbol of Nazi Germany they could find. There are some publications that you can only obtain in Germany if you're a scholar. Imo, this is a result from a moral panic, not societal regret.
If the flag was flying in the way it was shown here, I would 100% be in favor of removing it. If I was from SC, I'd be ashamed of this. A high flying proeminent flag, right?

Now this is how the flag looks like when seen from an angle that is more realistic:

This is a flag flying in front of a memorial obelisk, that about 30' high, probably lower than the palm trees. It's not glorification of the deep south racism. It's a memorial for soldiers that died under that flag. Do we need to remove it? Do we need to remove every single flag?
Sure, that flag defended some horrible policies, but I'm still all for honouring those who died in war, from all sides. That includes Nazi and Japanese soldiers. Hell, even the Arlington memorial has a lot for the confederacy dead. If I had kids and took them to visit that place, I'd use that spot as a great opportunity to teach them about the confederate war and how bad racial policies can lead to bad outcomes. Brazil has a troubled history with racism and I only understood the brutality of it when I visited old slave markets and slave punishment plazas. Sure, reading in a book gives you a sense, but the buildings and memorials and remains make it much real, much more concrete.

There is glorifying, then there is acknowledging and then there is throwing things in the memory hole. And denazification laws are closer to the latter. I'm not saying they should preserve every single swastika, but they went out of their way to remove every possible symbol of Nazi Germany they could find. There are some publications that you can only obtain in Germany if you're a scholar. Imo, this is a result from a moral panic, not societal regret.
If the flag was flying in the way it was shown here, I would 100% be in favor of removing it. If I was from SC, I'd be ashamed of this. A high flying proeminent flag, right?

Now this is how the flag looks like when seen from an angle that is more realistic:

This is a flag flying in front of a memorial obelisk, that about 30' high, probably lower than the palm trees. It's not glorification of the deep south racism. It's a memorial for soldiers that died under that flag. Do we need to remove it? Do we need to remove every single flag?
Sure, that flag defended some horrible policies, but I'm still all for honouring those who died in war, from all sides. That includes Nazi and Japanese soldiers. Hell, even the Arlington memorial has a lot for the confederacy dead. If I had kids and took them to visit that place, I'd use that spot as a great opportunity to teach them about the confederate war and how bad racial policies can lead to bad outcomes. Brazil has a troubled history with racism and I only understood the brutality of it when I visited old slave markets and slave punishment plazas. Sure, reading in a book gives you a sense, but the buildings and memorials and remains make it much real, much more concrete.

In TX, if you don't have car insurance you have to either put some real state you own as bond or deposit $55,000 with the government.

I think at this point you (or lawyer) are supposed to have received in the mail (1) copy of the letter from DOS and (2) notice from USCIS that they received the letter from the Department of State.

The processing time including regular security checks etc is about a month.
The rest of the time the petition is sitting in a box.
It is the latter, siting in a box that is being complaines about.

A degree of efficacy in the process is not unreasonable.

When you asked for the Social Security card to be sent to the new address, did you ask for a replacement card? I'm assuming so because the employee gave you your number. If yes, then you'll probably get one on the new address then.

Now we're piling on BaronB as if what he's saying is utterly absurd. It isn't. There are two reasons why you wouldn't want to advise on the legal channels to fix someone's illegality. (A) They may be lying and they're using the information to plan the best way of engaging in future fraud. (B) The information provided is open for other people to plan their own illegal behavior. For example, sandranj threads, are a library on what evidence you need to get a VAWA claim approved, but she's only providing advice for people that were abused.
Now I'm starting to doubt you're a lawyer. As a lawyer you should know that there *is* a giant ethical difference between a client that says "I murdered someone, what is my best defense" and a client that asks "I want to murder someone, how do I do get away with it?" These are not the same thing, even if the advice is the same ("what is the evidence?"). You probably think both of them are abominable and you personally may not want to represent either client. But you should know that representing the first one is legitimate but advising the second one is conspiracy murder.
The current community understanding of the TOS seems to follow this same guideline. Some of the advice can be used by people to plan future fraud, yes. And some people can come here and lie about their situation so as to get advice for a future illegal behavior. I understand why you have an issue with this. But there's no need to use a hyperbolic argument to make your point.
If you're being pedantic, I think illegal crossing is actually a misdemeanor.

1) I dispute your assertion about what is "less illegal" there but I don't care enough to elaborate. In any case advising someone about how to stop their criminal act in the best possible way is legal as long as all the advised acts are legal. You can instruct a murder that he should not answer any question from a cop. But you can't instruct him to destroy evidence.
2) In the specific case, an immigration lawyer's advice to a hypothetical IR overstayer working with a fraudulent SSN would be "get I-130, stop working, stop using the fake SSN, no lying in forms, apply for waivers, AOS and hope for the best". No one cares about the level of guilt his guy has because the procedure is the same. His level of guilt might make it harder for him to get the waivers, but that's it.
3) We're not that guy's lawyer and this isn't legal advice. So our clever reasoning doesn't have to "hold sway" in a US Court of Law. I'm also imagining the following scene:
EOIR/IJ/IO: "Well, mr., you're very culpable and yet you managed to know the legal steps to become legal. Yet, you don't have a lawyer. I wonder, who was the irresponsible person that help you with the forms?"
Overstayer: "Oh, it's this website visajourney. Their hive mind knows a lot about the immigration procedures and they were very helpful!"
EOIR/IJ/IO: "WHAT! A WEBSITE? GIVING ADVICE TO CRIMINALS? THEY ARE LABORING UNDER A FALSE REALITY! WE MUST INVESTIGATE THEM AND THEY ARE IN FOR A NASTY SURPRISE!"

1) I dispute your assertion about what is "less illegal" there but I don't care enough to elaborate. In any case advising someone about how to stop their criminal act in the best possible way is legal as long as all the advised acts are legal. You can instruct a murder that he should not answer any question from a cop. But you can't instruct him to destroy evidence.
2) In the specific case, an immigration lawyer's advice to a hypothetical IR overstayer working with a fraudulent SSN would be "get I-130, stop working, stop using the fake SSN, no lying in forms, apply for waivers, AOS and hope for the best". No one cares about the level of guilt his guy has because the procedure is the same. His level of guilt might make it harder for him to get the waivers, but that's it.
3) We're not that guy's lawyer and this isn't legal advice. So our clever reasoning doesn't have to "hold sway" in a US Court of Law. I'm also imagining the following scene:
EOIR/IJ/IO: "Well, mr., you're very culpable and yet you managed to know the legal steps to become legal. Yet, you don't have a lawyer. I wonder, who was the irresponsible person that help you with the forms?"
Overstayer: "Oh, it's this website visajourney. Their hive mind knows a lot about the immigration procedures and they were very helpful!"
EOIR/IJ/IO: "WHAT! A WEBSITE? GIVING ADVICE TO CRIMINALS? THEY ARE LABORING UNDER A FALSE REALITY! WE MUST INVESTIGATE THEM AND THEY ARE IN FOR A NASTY SURPRISE!"

Sounds like a plan! Congrats on the baby and the wedding and hope it's all smooth for you guys!

sandranj, I don't know if anything shady happened with the uncle (and really, deporting someone after over 30 years in the country is inhumane IMO), but it's hard to believe that aunt Zeituni wasn't benefited by her relationships... she got an asylum request denied in 2004 once and her accepted request for asylum flies in the face of the "12 months of you coming to the US" rule for asylum. It also happened in 2010, after he was already president.
You're an immigration lawyer and I'll defer to you on whether there is some argument that can be raised and works in her case. But I'm a believer in the "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" paradigm.