TBoneTX

Just a caveat for people traveling on Advance Parole. If you are using a roundtrip ticket that originates in the U.S., you might raise some eyebrows when trying to board your return flight to the U.S. using the second half of the ticket. My wife was briefly detained by security officials while leaving the foreign country. The security officials had never heard of AP. From their perspective, a foreign resident wanted to board a flight to the U.S. on a one-way ticket, which is a warning flag to security screeners these days. Of course, it was neither a one-way ticket--it was the return portion of a roundtrip--nor was she an ordinary nonresident, since her official status is "adjusting status" and was granted AP. The security officials in the foreign country had to call U.S. authorities to ask what this AP thing was that my wife was trying to explain. It all got sorted out quickly, but I just thought I'd post an account of her experience traveling on AP here. If you're traveling to some area of the world where communication may not be as swift or the officials as motivated in getting to the bottom of the issue, you could have a minor problem.

"Limitations"? Hard to say.
The primary condition of your K-1 visa is that you marry your USC petitioner within that 90 day period. As long as that has occurred, and there are no other negative factors (felony arrests, leaving the country without AP documents, unauthorized employment, etc), your AOS should go fine. A gap of a few weeks between the I-94 expiry and the AOS filing will not, in the vast majority of cases, cause any problems with the AOS filing. Filing AOS after the 90 days is far from unheard of, and the vast majority of AOS filings in that situation get approved, with the same probability of success, just as if they had been filed within the first 90 days.
Now mind you, there are other reasons - very good reasons, to file AOS during the first 90 days, or as soon as humanly possible thereafter. Running into federal law enforcement or ICE (at, for example, an inland road stop) between I-94 expiry and AOS filing would probably be far more interesting than you would like. But filing a little late shouldn't affect the eventual success of your eventual AOS filing.
Don't let fear of already being late be a reason to put off filing, for fear of adverse consequences for lateness. Rather, let it be an impetus to file as soon as possible.

I feel it's not a "gray and murky" question.
Your status is controlled by the I-94. Not the K-1 visa. Not your marriage to the USC.
Only by the I-94. All explained here.
Once your I-94 goes out, your past your "authorized stay" - so you start getting days out of status. Get enough of them and you would suffer a ban if you attempt to re-enter the US (even with an AP) prior to getting a GC.
If ICE finds you out of status, or if your going through Arizona and get pulled over, your going to have a bad day.
So, to protect your status, you want to get that AOS going ASAP. Once you have the NOA in you hands, your "safe". (all though, if you acquired 180+ days of out of status, you still can get the ban, not withstanding the NOA).
Also - if you go past a year from your K-1 medical and file for AOS, you will have to do a complete exam, again.
Most people will have no issues filing for the AOS after the 90 days, but it sucks for you if you are one of the few that does. (overstay is normally not a "stopping" factor for AOS to an USC)
(to add - if you go past the 90 days of VWP - you entering a different realm - and there are cases where people tried to file after the 90 days and got sent home (no appeal for the VWP))
This is my opinion - why play with fire if you can prevent getting burned?

Yes, you are right, it is rare. Very, very rare.
Simply put though, a visa (of any kind) doesn't guarantee you admission to the US. Think of a visa as a document which gives you permission to present yourself at a US border, for entry, for a certain purpose (working, going to university, marriage, business, etc). At this point, the decision is always in the hands of US Customs and Border Patrol. CBP agents are charged with the responsibility of ascertaining whether or not you present as you purported to the State Department. And they are also charged with inspecting you for contraband or as a security risk.
Every step of this process is intertwined yet separate. Understanding the steps makes it easier to prepare yourself for a smooth journey.

Fourth Amendment, anybody?

The above answers are very good. The transfer could also reflect a heavy caseload at your local office. Your application could be transferred back from CSC to your local office, but the chance is remote. Just relax, si man.

The issue of changing the interview date was discussed in this thread.
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/255099-finally-my-wife-has-an-interviewbut-what-to-do/
I don't know though if they would let you move the date up, but if they told you that that was the quickest slot available I assume that that is correct. I suppose you can keep calling them but that will get expensive, with the $12 fee. If you have the money, why not go back to the United States now to look for a job and get a place to live and then return to Ecuador for the interview, or alternatively you could return to the United States immediately after the interview and your fiancee could follow a couple of months late. Also, be careful to not let your visa expire in Ecuador...I don't know what type of visa you have but if it is a tourist visa, you can only be in Ecuador for 90 days per year. As another poster has learned it can be very expensive to leave Ecuador if you overstay, not to mention that you will be hit with a ban barring you from returning to Ecuador for a number of months.

They may have decided your application didn't require an interview at your local office. In a week you might receive another email saying it's being processed at a USCIS office. That just means it arrived in CA safely.

Don't mess with Parul, no man! I think that the meanest of all VJ members had her account closed toward the beginning of the year. Good riddance, and I believe that the atmosphere on VJ is markedly improved as a result of said riddance, si man.What we NEED is (are) more responses in the "Wedgies, Si Man" poll thread, si man.

From what I have read here, getting a joint sponsor (assuming you can find one) will not be a problem in Ecuador-they could care less about your income as long as the paper work is done right, and it does not seem to be too hard to do.
If you have looked at the reviews for Ecuador or have taken a look at the thread that I am pasting at the bottom of my comments, you will have seen that Guayaquil, which is where the interview will take place, is a very difficult consulate. I did not meet my wife through the internet but rather when I was living in Ecuador for over a year, so I am not sure what the COs there tend to think about internet relationships, but I would make my best effort to get as much evidence as possible and send as much of it with your I 130 application (you can make copies of certain items). I do know that recently people have been denied despite the fact that they have known their spouse/fiancee for years, so you need to be extremely cautious. You need to show that you have spent time with your fiancee, have pictures, email/call records and really anything else that you can think of. PAY ATTENTION to whatever tbonex says; he has been here for a couple of years and is very familiar with the consulate in Guayaquil.
As far as criminal conviction, it depends on what exactly happened, just like everybody else is saying. Make sure your fiancee fully understands what happened so that she does not get surprised with a question at the interview. If your "reported income" is not your actual income, you do need to get that straightened out because this is just the start of the process.
Best of luck!
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/110313-us-consulate-in-guayaquil-ecuador/

IMO, the issues you describe don't scream ATTORNEY to me. However, the decision to hire professional help is a personal one that I think depends on a lot more than whether you have a complicated case. The factors I would consider important are....
1. Do you have the time and inclination to spend at least a hundred hours over the next few months to learn the process?
2. Do you have confidence you can and will read carefully, interpret literally and answer accurately?
3. Does this confidence come from having previously dealt with government forms and agencies?
4. Are you reading and writing skills advanced enough to do as described in 2 above?
There are other conditions and just to cut certain comments off at the pass, I'm not saying people who can't answer yes to all of the above will fail. I'm saying each of these items is something to consider in making your decision.

You can try the Circuit Clerk, Registrar Office, or whatever they are called in your area (I'm referring to the official body wherein domestic cases are filed and recorded). Most of these offices will have a 'pro bono' packet wherein persons may file their own domestic paperwork.
However, the situation you are in is not the norm. The answers to your questions may not be found in 'do it yourself' instructions. Who is the divorce 'expert' in your town? There are usually at least one or two attorneys (even in small cities) who specialize in this area. I would call the office of a local expert and ask how much a consult would be. Your attorney may not be an expert in divorce law.

No problem at all as long as you use the first leg of the trip. Don't ticket where you would only use the return portion of the ticket.

While the law doesn't require K1 applicants to have their vaccinations in order to receive the visa, a Consulate is certainly allowed to require them. It is my general advice that where practical, K1 applicant's go ahead and get all their vaccinations prior to or during the medical exam, whether required or not. It saves the trouble of dealing with a Civil Surgeon in the USA, many of which won't sign the vaccination supplement without doing the medical again.

This is covered clearly in the I-129F instructions. You already have the answer to this specific question but I strongly urge you to carefully study those instructions so you know what else you may have missed. Also, paying a fee of $455 is applicable to filing a petition for a fiancee. You posted in the K3 (spouse visa but obsolete) forum. Just what are you filing for? We don't have a forum designed to discuss the N/A visa from the nation of N/A. Please fill in your profile information.

While it isn't ideal and your friend has a substantial overstay, she did enter the country legally on the K-1 visa. She didn't fulfill the requirement of the K-1 visa by getting married within 90 days but she did fulfill the requirement of the K-1 by marrying the person who petitioned for her, so she is allowed to apply for a Green card. If she had married anyone else at all she would not be allowed to apply for a green card and would have to leave the US.
Your friend's husband needs to file the I-130 form and she needs to file the I-485 and send them in together. The I-130 is a petition for a family member - which she is - of a US citizen to be allowed to apply to adjust status. She is no longer able to apply under the K-1 status since that expired with her I-94 so that is why the I-130 is required.
There does not appear to be anything that will prevent her from adjusting status since she did marry her original petitioner and she hasn't left the country since her arrival. She should definitely not leave the country now until she gets her green card approved. There is no point in her applying for an AP (I-131) travel document as she cannot use it. While she is currently out of status, once she applies for the AOS she will again have legal status in the US which will continue until she receives a decision about her green card. When her green card is approved any overstays or unauthorized work will be forgiven.
She will likely be called in for an interview and it is probable immigration will ask her why she waited so long to get married. She and her husband should be prepared to address questions like this (honestly, of course). They should make sure they send more, rather than less, evidence that documents the validity of their marriage with their application.

I would leave out anything about money transfers. One way transfers are not co-mingling. Your marriage certificate is the document from your marriage ceremony that is important. Affidavits from people who know no more about your relationship than that they attended a ceremony are usually lame and no help. Unless by eticket, you mean boarding pass, it isn't evidence, besides, the marriage certificate indicates you were "there".
Don't know what you mean by cell phone transcripts but if YOU typed them, leave them out. They aren't evidence either.
I take it you're reading the I-130 instructions, which is good but anything you read directly following the words "in addition to the required....." is NOT REQUIRED. So only include it if it is actual evidence and will be "helpful".

You've got good information so far. In short, Citizenship eligibility is available after three years of permanent resident status. The general idea of "permanent resident" needs to be observed. There's no hard and fast minimums you can set up a schedule to meet. The N400 citizenship application DOES require one to list all trips outside the USA including the number of days. If you want to give your wife a chance at US Citizenship, plan on making the USA your primary residence for at least three years, including spending most of your time here.

Although Salt Lake City is known as a "sanctuary city", where the police have been ordered not to poke into immigration status, I've always proceeded on the assumption that the police could do exactly what the Arizona law requires them to do: ask for my green card. The material that USCIS sent me with my green card made it perfectly clear that my immigration status was subject to inspection by any civil authority, and I don't see how any reasonable person could claim that that isn't or shouldn't be the case.
The two issues raised by opponents to this law are the specters of implied racism against Hispanics, and violations of the civil liberties of US citizens. It is important to note that the wording of the law says that inquiry into immigration status may occur if the officer "has reason to believe that the person has immigrated illegally."
To the first issue: While I am cognizant of the serious problems with racial profiling, the opponents of this law are misusing racial profiling as a bogeyman. Racial profiling is counterproductive as a security policy because it generates a huge number of false positives. While the vast majority of non-domestic terrorists in the US are Muslim, the vast vast majority of Muslims are non-terrorists. As such, any security policy that singles out Muslims for extra screening will generate a huge number of false positives, and violate the civil rights of those Muslims for no good reason.
However, this dynamic is not at work in the immigration issue. While a very large majority of Hispanics in the US are not illegal immigrants (and as a consequence, profiling on race alone would be counterproductive and arguably evil), the vast majority of people who are Hispanic AND non-English speaking AND engaged in day labour AND unable to produce a plausible green card or social security card - the vast majority of people who meet ALL of these characteristics ARE illegal immigrants. The intersection of those four characteristics, while not in themselves proving illegal immigration, do provide probable cause to suspect illegal immigration, and justify further investigation. The fact that racial ethnicity is one of those characteristics does not make this an instance of racial profiling, no matter how rhetorically convenient it is to opponents of this law to yell "Racist!" at its supporters.
To the second issue: American citizens are not required to carry any sort of ID. This is a wonderful, honorable part of the American legal tradition, and must be vigorously defended. But it does create an apparent hole in any serious attempt at immigration enforcement. All any one, legal or illegal, has to do to evade this law is apparently to say "Yes, I am an American citizen", and their lack of ID is no longer valid, or even contributory evidence of illegal immigration status.
At this point an illegal immigrant has fallen into a serious trap, one I believe was built into this law by design. They have added to the relatively minor crime of visa overstay (or even entry without inspection) the far more serious crime of willful misrepresentation as a US citizen. If subsequent investigation shows this person to be an illegal immigrant, this misrepresentation charge can be used to significantly increase their punishment or fine. A similar dynamic exists in the immigration process itself. Several forms ask if the intending immigrant has committed any crimes for which they have not been arrested or charged. The point of this question is not to capture any criminals ingenuous enough to answer "Yes" - it is to provide the opportunity for an extra offense - that of lying on an immigration form - and therefore the possibility of extra punishment - in the event that undisclosed crimes are discovered in the future. I therefore do not believe that this law, executed properly, represents a serious attack on the civil rights of legitimate US citizens. They have a simple, legal, and honest out which should immediately cut off any increased scrutiny by law enforcement, while causing illegal immigrants to only increase the precariousness of their already dangerous legal position.

Yes, Direct Consular Filing in Italy if you are both residing there at the time. Since you will have been married more than two years, it will be the IR1 visa, not the CR1. The difference is the ten year green card upon arrival instead of two year.

This petition is already approved, so is no longer in the hands of USCIS. Yes, send the letter to USCIS but the Consulate will be contacting the beneficiary directly. You'll need to notify the Consulate of your intention to withdraw the petition as well. If you can catch it while it's still at NVC, all the better. Call and speak to a human, then back it up with a letter. As a practical matter, if you never provide an affidavit of support there is little chance the petition will result in a visa anyway but you want to make official notification.
Since this is a letter that can only be signed by you, I would have your signature notarized and use Certified mail to USCIS. Neither is "required", just my advice for the reason stated.

Perhaps you're afraid that he'll change your mind. Follow the originally suggested instructions, please.

USCIS, (Dept. of Homeland Security) doesn't process or issue visas. They approve petitions. Consulates, (Part of the Dept. of State) process and issue family based visa based on approved petitions. Since USCIS has been sending the two approved petitions to NVC together for more than three years, the DOS announcement that they will administratively close the I-129F petition when both arrive together, EFFECTIVELY renders the K3 visa obsolete in all practical aspects.
For someone to file both petitions with the expectation a K3 visa would result would be a false expectation. As such, the K3 is virtually obsolete. Regardless of that, the K3 has not saved any significant time in reuniting families for over three years, and in many cases following the K3 path has actually extended the visa timeline.
The K3 visa exists and USCIS (who again does not issue visas) still says all the same things about the K3 they've always said, even though three years out of date. Actually getting to the point of interviewing for a K3 visa is not something the petitioner or beneficiary can control. NVC killed it.
It's true that policies and procedures change, so resurrection is a possibility but IMO, a possibility that carries no benefit in reuniting families to reside in the USA.

There was a short time the USCIS was holding I-130 petitions when both petitions were filed. You must have gone through during that short window of time. Currently, both petitions are being worked on the same desk by the same person and approved and forwarded to NVC together in virtually all cases. The new NVC procedure is as of February 1. For all practical purposes, at this point in time, the K3 visa is no longer a viable option. Therefore it is currently obsolete. If all you're arguing is the use of the term "obsolete" then you are technically correct. From a practical standpoint though, K3 is obsolete, dead, unavailable, no longer a viable option, not going to happen. Take your pick.
The purpose in explaining it as we do is to get the point across to the members that they need to proceed with the CR1 or IR1, including learning that process from the beginning and that they are wise not to slow that process by filing an I-129F that has only the slightest possible fluke of a chance of proceeding through to the issue of a K3 visa.

Please avoid giving incorrect advice. Read the posts by immigration attorney Marc Ellis (VJ handle is ellis-island) for the correct information, and, if I remember, the pinned thread by Gary and Alla in which he posed questions to the head of the VSC. Independent of the foregoing: If you do not front-load the petition to USCIS, the consulate can choose to ignore anything and everything that is brought to the interview.Edited to add: In the pinned thread mentioned above, the VSC Director says: "They [the consulates] get whatever we get when it is sent on." Again, please do your research before posting inaccurate advice.