Caladan

I don't throw things out, and it doesn't have anything to do with respect, but just a combination of being a pack rat and liking to keep my personal history.
Should I tear up all the group photos from college because it didn't work out with a guy I dated? No thanks.

I think we make that mistake because so many of the benefits are means-tested, so we falsely assume that if the USC is using any benefits, they won't meet 125% of the poverty line. But they are indeed two separate concerns! Some benefits are means-tested but allow people at 150% of the poverty line to use it (like CHIP.)
The I-864 is explicitly concerned with cash-equivalence assistance and (this is probably the big one) recurring medical bills on the government dime. Needing food stamps does not make one a public charge.

She's only been out of town a few months, in what, two visits over eighteen months? And she's visiting family? And didn't cut short what is a... six week long vacation immediately on his say so? And he thinks that's grounds for trying to ensure she doesn't come back? Is there something else going on? I feel like I'm missing some relevant detail because that sounds like an awfully big jump to a conclusion of "as you can see, she doesn't love this guy", as do the claims that she must be a gold digger and that he should divorce her right away and take the kid and make sure he changes the locks and gets custody.....
I'm sure there have to be other details here.
(For comparison, C.'s probably spent a similar amount of time in Canada with work, including most of November, December, January and February. A month last summer visiting family. Things he did not lose include: green card, marriage, etc.)
In any event, one doesn't need advance parole once one has conditional permanent residency for a two month visit, and she's nowhere near getting her permanent residency revoked. If she plans to be out of the U.S. for a year, she'd need to apply for a re-entry permit. But six weeks on her own out of town isn't anywhere near enough. If they get divorced, she can adjust on her own based on having entered the marriage in good faith and the sponsor is still on the hook per the terms of the I-864.

Or, she moved here and now has a life here independently of the original hopes and dreams. If C. and I were to divorce I'd expect that he would stay here, because he has a job and friends and is established here. He might decide instead to go home, but I could see why he might not want to quit his job and move back in a bad economy.

Or, you know, you could think that maybe if someone's moved thousands of miles, she might be in a better position to know what she's given up and what her options are than you do. "Just go home if your marriage fails" is not universally good advice, which is why the U.S. government has provided a legal route for people whose marriages fail to stay. Just because you'd want to go home, or because you'd want your spouse deported, does NOT mean that is someone else's best option.

People, the immigrant is allowed to stay in the U.S. if he or she entered the marriage in good faith. And they might well have good reasons for wanting to stay after uprooting their life, reasons which surprisingly enough they are in a better position to know than you. This is about them, not about whether you'd want to deport your spouse if he or she left you.

This one may be worth bouncing off a lawyer before any decision is made. There's a lot riding on this to leave it on a "what if Grandpa had died during flight?" because the answer to that very well could be "we're sorry for your loss, but we find that you're ineligible for the immigration benefits since the petitioner died before you entered." There's all sorts of weird lacunae in the law -- people aging out of eligibility for green cards, spouses on K-3s whose USCs die before filing. Stuff where common sense would say "of course they're going to give your 22-year-old kid the green card, you filed when he was 16, it's not your fault it took so long!" or "no way the US would place a widow in removal proceedings -- it wasn't her fault her husband died before they had to interview!"
Remember the story in the papers a while back about the couple who received a K-1, then married, and then used the K-1, figuring, as many do even on VJ at first, that it wouldn't really matter because after all, they weren't sneaking the wife in or marrying other people or a sham marriage. And it turned out that it did matter, because the marriage made her ineligible to use the fiance visa, whether she knew about it or not, even though she originally had obtained it fairly. They weren't trying to do anything fraudulent, but it left her without a way to adjust status. Ignorance didn't really help them out.
The worry I would have here, based on what mermaid posted, is that something similar might apply in this case. It says the petition is revoked, and that the immigrant can apply for a waiver. But it's not clear what constitutes a revocation, or whether using the visa once the relationship to the US petitioner no longer exists (because of the death) would be like using a fiancee visa after getting married, putting the person at risk for misrepresentation. Or whether it's not an issue, at all, but only if the person files the proper paperwork before leaving. Or whether it's no more an issue than it would be for any other green card holder whose sponsor died after they'd received it.
And I worry because I'm not clear what activating an immigrant visa does, legally. Is it functionally equivalent to a permanent resident crossing the border? Or is it the official last step before one is granted permanent residency?
In any case, a consultation with a lawyer would probably clear this up, or at least let you know what your options are.

Speculation, so with a grain of salt: once someone has permanent residency, it's hard to take it away. Marriage is the easiest path to residency and citizenship, and if all one had to do was get married to get a permanent card with no check at all it would be an even more attractive target for fraud.
They can interview couples whom they suspect are not bona fide. And someone who divorces shortly after being married probably isn't better off divorced. They'll still need to show that they entered into the marriage with good intentions, and that's going to be harder (among other things, they have less evidence due to the shorter marriage, a former spouse who may be acrimonious, etc.) The real risk of someone not being able to file to remove conditions on their own following a divorce is a situation where someone has to choose between staying in a marriage that's fallen apart and being kicked out of the country.
And you might move back. But there's no reason that other people should have to, if their intentions were bona fide. There's plenty of reasons; one could have a good career, one could have uprooted the kids and they're just settling into school, etc.

Bona fide is just bona fide intentions. It doesn't require a judgment of whether the couple really thought it through before getting married, or an assessment of compatibility or whether they'd be likely to make it long term. It doesn't require anyone to be attractive or sensible or anything. (And a good thing, too! Lots of people would be screaming about how they couldn't get the initial visa if they had to prove compatibility.)
And it might not be about establishing a career in two years. It might be that you'd be a shamed woman if you went back home divorced, or that after two years you're starting to settle in, or that you don't have much to return to at all, etc. Or that, hell, you've just uprooted your life and are starting to get settled. Many do go home.
And it's not as easy as you think. One has to prove bona fide intentions *and receive the conditional green card*, and then to petition on one's own, one would have to have the divorce finalized in time to lift conditions. There's a number of posts from people whose marriage is failing but they're still married when it's time to remove conditions. Divorces take time, as the OP understands.
To the OP: get an attorney. I don't know the laws on your state on annulment (it's usually hard to get one a year into a marriage) but the thing is, neither does anyone else here. You'll want whatever divorce/annulment that occurs to happen in a way that it's in your favor, and attorney is going to be your best bet for that.

Just a point of clarifcation:
Intent to marry is not the issue. Intent to *immigrate* at the point of entry is the issue, and intent to marry is relevant insofar as it relates to intent to immigrate. Time elapsed is relevant insofar as it appears to establish intent to immigrate, but it's just a guideline and can't be given too much weight.
E.g., I know plenty of international couples who met while in grad school. They didn't cancel their student visas and run home to wait out a spousal visa process once they got engaged. As they were legitimately using their student visas (properly enrolled, etc), they just adjusted status based on their marriage. Why? Because they didn't use the student visa to immigrate or with immigrant intent. They used it to go to school; then they fell in love, got married, and then decided to immigrate. And that is completely fine by the U.S. government.
So the issue isn't the marriage. It's whether the marriage itself looks like evidence of intent to immigrate. Here, the worry would be that it really looks like you had both -- intent to marry and to stay. So the CR-1 is likely the route with the least hassle. But it is not fraud to enter without immigrant intent, marry, and then decide to stay. It's just difficult to prove that you didn't have intent, and the burden of proof is on the applicant.

Just a point of clarifcation:
Intent to marry is not the issue. Intent to *immigrate* at the point of entry is the issue, and intent to marry is relevant insofar as it relates to intent to immigrate. Time elapsed is relevant insofar as it appears to establish intent to immigrate, but it's just a guideline and can't be given too much weight.
E.g., I know plenty of international couples who met while in grad school. They didn't cancel their student visas and run home to wait out a spousal visa process once they got engaged. As they were legitimately using their student visas (properly enrolled, etc), they just adjusted status based on their marriage. Why? Because they didn't use the student visa to immigrate or with immigrant intent. They used it to go to school; then they fell in love, got married, and then decided to immigrate. And that is completely fine by the U.S. government.
So the issue isn't the marriage. It's whether the marriage itself looks like evidence of intent to immigrate. Here, the worry would be that it really looks like you had both -- intent to marry and to stay. So the CR-1 is likely the route with the least hassle. But it is not fraud to enter without immigrant intent, marry, and then decide to stay. It's just difficult to prove that you didn't have intent, and the burden of proof is on the applicant.

I have to say that one thing that concerns me about this suggestion brainstorm is that as petitioners and beneficiaries, we have only a small slice of the relevant data. Here are some questions to which we'd need to know the answers before suggesting solutions:
1) What percentage of cases are fraudulent? What percentage of cases being fraudulent is within acceptable limits?
2) Of the cases that are fraudulent, how many of them are cases where the U.S. citizen is aiding and abetting the fraud? How many are cases where the U.S. citizen has been taken advantage of?
3) What is common to the fraudulent cases? (I believe that the most common use of the marriage visa is for people who actually have ties to the "home country", e.g., a first-generation American marries a girl from his parents' country of origin. Are these more or less likely to be fraudulent than the stereotypical mail-order-bride marriage?) What factors can be identified before the visa is granted?
4) What percentage of removal of conditions are granted via a) VAWA or b) self-petition? (No need to close down this option and make life more difficult for legitimate immigrants if it's not a source of fraud.)
5) How many of the fraudulent cases required co-sponsors?
Here I think most of us are at sea with no data. It'd be like trying to make recommendations on how to make McDonald's more profitable when all you know is that you ate a Big Mac once and really like the fries.
I have to say in general I'm wary of anything that ups the costs on someone who already is here with conditional residency. First is the potential for abuse of the immigrant who finds him or herself in a bad situation, and I don't think that can be discounted (especially since VAWA isnt' the cakewalk some believe). Second, I suspect that in an open society like we have, anything that happens after the person is here is disproportionately likely to be a huge pain in the #### for those doing it legitimately (it makes me sick to think that under these brainstormed proposals, I would have a whole 'nother year to prove that my relationship is legitimate) without actually reducing fraud.
Honestly, I think that what would probably help is more funding. More funding = more time to be spent with each petition, more ability to do home visits, &c in the places that are high fraud, more review. I'd rather see that before a more onerous process.

I have to say that one thing that concerns me about this suggestion brainstorm is that as petitioners and beneficiaries, we have only a small slice of the relevant data. Here are some questions to which we'd need to know the answers before suggesting solutions:
1) What percentage of cases are fraudulent? What percentage of cases being fraudulent is within acceptable limits?
2) Of the cases that are fraudulent, how many of them are cases where the U.S. citizen is aiding and abetting the fraud? How many are cases where the U.S. citizen has been taken advantage of?
3) What is common to the fraudulent cases? (I believe that the most common use of the marriage visa is for people who actually have ties to the "home country", e.g., a first-generation American marries a girl from his parents' country of origin. Are these more or less likely to be fraudulent than the stereotypical mail-order-bride marriage?) What factors can be identified before the visa is granted?
4) What percentage of removal of conditions are granted via a) VAWA or b) self-petition? (No need to close down this option and make life more difficult for legitimate immigrants if it's not a source of fraud.)
5) How many of the fraudulent cases required co-sponsors?
Here I think most of us are at sea with no data. It'd be like trying to make recommendations on how to make McDonald's more profitable when all you know is that you ate a Big Mac once and really like the fries.
I have to say in general I'm wary of anything that ups the costs on someone who already is here with conditional residency. First is the potential for abuse of the immigrant who finds him or herself in a bad situation, and I don't think that can be discounted (especially since VAWA isnt' the cakewalk some believe). Second, I suspect that in an open society like we have, anything that happens after the person is here is disproportionately likely to be a huge pain in the #### for those doing it legitimately (it makes me sick to think that under these brainstormed proposals, I would have a whole 'nother year to prove that my relationship is legitimate) without actually reducing fraud.
Honestly, I think that what would probably help is more funding. More funding = more time to be spent with each petition, more ability to do home visits, &c in the places that are high fraud, more review. I'd rather see that before a more onerous process.

I have to say that one thing that concerns me about this suggestion brainstorm is that as petitioners and beneficiaries, we have only a small slice of the relevant data. Here are some questions to which we'd need to know the answers before suggesting solutions:
1) What percentage of cases are fraudulent? What percentage of cases being fraudulent is within acceptable limits?
2) Of the cases that are fraudulent, how many of them are cases where the U.S. citizen is aiding and abetting the fraud? How many are cases where the U.S. citizen has been taken advantage of?
3) What is common to the fraudulent cases? (I believe that the most common use of the marriage visa is for people who actually have ties to the "home country", e.g., a first-generation American marries a girl from his parents' country of origin. Are these more or less likely to be fraudulent than the stereotypical mail-order-bride marriage?) What factors can be identified before the visa is granted?
4) What percentage of removal of conditions are granted via a) VAWA or b) self-petition? (No need to close down this option and make life more difficult for legitimate immigrants if it's not a source of fraud.)
5) How many of the fraudulent cases required co-sponsors?
Here I think most of us are at sea with no data. It'd be like trying to make recommendations on how to make McDonald's more profitable when all you know is that you ate a Big Mac once and really like the fries.
I have to say in general I'm wary of anything that ups the costs on someone who already is here with conditional residency. First is the potential for abuse of the immigrant who finds him or herself in a bad situation, and I don't think that can be discounted (especially since VAWA isnt' the cakewalk some believe). Second, I suspect that in an open society like we have, anything that happens after the person is here is disproportionately likely to be a huge pain in the #### for those doing it legitimately (it makes me sick to think that under these brainstormed proposals, I would have a whole 'nother year to prove that my relationship is legitimate) without actually reducing fraud.
Honestly, I think that what would probably help is more funding. More funding = more time to be spent with each petition, more ability to do home visits, &c in the places that are high fraud, more review. I'd rather see that before a more onerous process.

One thing to keep in mind is that people tend to be circumspect when they run into problems, so I wouldn't take absence of threads about it as proof of anything. (How many people come back to post just that, e.g., their marriage fell apart, or that they had a problem later on?) In any case, I found this board back in 2006, before we were engaged, from hearing on another board from a Canadian woman who used to be a member here. Her story was this: married, baby, and said once, on the spur of the moment, that she was an American citizen when crossing the border, just hoping they'd get through faster. Unfortunately, this little lie meant for no purpose counted as a serious material misrepresentation, and it took them a long time to sort it all out, and "sorting it out" meant she moved back to Canada with a ban.
I have no doubt that there are people who have done it, but it's very much against the rules, and we're presently in an immigration climate where people are more likely to be hardasses. And any chance that you have to interact with the authorities is a chance for you to say something that will come back to haunt you later. You're in a good position now. You can file the paperwork and keep visiting like you've been visiting. It's mostly hands-off once the paperwork is sent in, in any case.

The greencard is hers, not yours. Read this slowly because you seem to be a little bit confused. It's not your property any more than her driver's license would be. Do you think you can make it so that she doesn't have a driver's license by taking it away and cutting it up? Then why on earth would you think it would work for a green card?
You're setting yourself up nicely for an abuse case. Theft, fraud, abandonment, and deception. Man, what attorney wouldn't want her case! All because you're scared of the affidavit of support. Sunshine, those like you are the reason that there is an affidavit of support.
Be a man. File for divorce if it's not working out, and let her handle her own affairs from there.

The greencard is hers, not yours. Read this slowly because you seem to be a little bit confused. It's not your property any more than her driver's license would be. Do you think you can make it so that she doesn't have a driver's license by taking it away and cutting it up? Then why on earth would you think it would work for a green card?
You're setting yourself up nicely for an abuse case. Theft, fraud, abandonment, and deception. Man, what attorney wouldn't want her case! All because you're scared of the affidavit of support. Sunshine, those like you are the reason that there is an affidavit of support.
Be a man. File for divorce if it's not working out, and let her handle her own affairs from there.

Okay, a couple of things I've noticed:
1) You talk about her like she's a child. Not just that she's acting childish, but that your expectations seem to take for granted that she's a child. E.g., if my husband and I were to fight over money, and he responded by saying "no computer for you as punishment", I'd probably wonder why on earth he thought it was appropriate to treat me like I was his teenaged daughter and ground me from the computer. It would make matters worse if he decided that he had sole control over my paycheck, or thought that he should take away the keys to teach me a lesson.
I'm saying you need to treat her like an adult. She has absolutely no incentive not to act like a spoiled teenager. Why not wheedle? You're just going to ground her, Daddy.
2) On the "contribute to the budget" thing. My dad was primary breadwinner and my mom had a small part-time job & was a stay-at-home mom. It would have been beyond weird if once she had that little library job, he demanded her paycheck so he could deduct her share of the mortgage. The money all comes out of the same place eventually; it was sensible to let her spend that on us kids for presents and keep the cash in her envelope. I wonder, since her income is not substantial, if it might work better to say that instead of her paying 10% of the bills that she can manage her discretionary spending and you won't contribute to her family beyond that. She's pulling in what, $10K per year?
What if you said, okay, here's how we can work this. I'll pay all the bills, but the only spending money you get is what you earn; you can spend that on your family or on yourself (including monthly car insurance); you're a grown-up, so decide what you want to do. She doesn't get access to the main account; your budget is secure. She learns to budget on her own. If you can work out issues, you can work them out without fighting over money.
3) I hesitate to recommend divorce because we're only hearing one side of it. But I do know that in some cultures more than others, you marry the whole family, and the amount of pressure they can put on her is crazy. Both you and she need to set boundaries, and it may help to think of you (even if she's not) as a unit against them.

There's no rule that there has to be a joint account, just that assets have to be co-mingled; a joint account is simply a very easy way to show that, especially for a couple that doesn't own a home or a car. And it's not about a judgment as to who is more valuable, because they don't care about how much money they have or who puts it in; it's just a reliable metric that separates fraudsters (who are unlikely to want to commit their money to what is otherwise just having a roommate) from legitimate couples. Striking co-mingling of assets from the rules will make it much easier for charlatans, and will increase the scrutiny on legitimate couples.
OP, I definitely agree with the consensus that you need an attorney. But something else occurred to me: does your wife have a credit card? Even if it's in her name, you've been paying the bills, right, since she just got her EAD? Here's my thinking. You could look at her credit card receipts and find your bill payments to that account. It's not great financial evidence, but showing some kind of financial connection is better than what you have now.