JimVaPhuong

Until this law has been in effect for a while, I wouldn't expect the cops in Arizona to be particularly competent in determining someone's legal status. Some cases will be straightforward - the person being questioned will present a passport with valid unexpired I-94, a valid green card, or an ID card or driver's license issued in one of the 44 states that require proof of legal residence to get the card. For other cases, they'll probably defer to federal authorities to make the determination. I wouldn't expect an Arizona cop to know the difference between an I-797C and a kindergarten graduation diploma, nor to know the terms and conditions of a K1 visa and whether an alien was in compliance with those terms. I expect this will gradually change, as cops get better training and experience, and learn more about the various types of entry and immigration status documents.
Until she has a green card, the passport is a required form of identification. It would be a good idea to also have the I-94 (in spite of the fact that it's expired), and the I-797C for the AOS. The cop may have no idea what these documents mean, but if he calls the CBP they will be able to explain what he should be looking for. I don't see any value in carrying your marriage certificate unless the I-94 is expired and you haven't filed for AOS, or don't have the I-797C yet. Again, the cop probably won't understand the significance of the marriage certificate relative to the dates on the I-94, but CBP would be able to explain it him.
For now, don't be surprised if an encounter with Arizona police takes a bit of time while they confirm status with CBP or DHS.

Until this law has been in effect for a while, I wouldn't expect the cops in Arizona to be particularly competent in determining someone's legal status. Some cases will be straightforward - the person being questioned will present a passport with valid unexpired I-94, a valid green card, or an ID card or driver's license issued in one of the 44 states that require proof of legal residence to get the card. For other cases, they'll probably defer to federal authorities to make the determination. I wouldn't expect an Arizona cop to know the difference between an I-797C and a kindergarten graduation diploma, nor to know the terms and conditions of a K1 visa and whether an alien was in compliance with those terms. I expect this will gradually change, as cops get better training and experience, and learn more about the various types of entry and immigration status documents.
Until she has a green card, the passport is a required form of identification. It would be a good idea to also have the I-94 (in spite of the fact that it's expired), and the I-797C for the AOS. The cop may have no idea what these documents mean, but if he calls the CBP they will be able to explain what he should be looking for. I don't see any value in carrying your marriage certificate unless the I-94 is expired and you haven't filed for AOS, or don't have the I-797C yet. Again, the cop probably won't understand the significance of the marriage certificate relative to the dates on the I-94, but CBP would be able to explain it him.
For now, don't be surprised if an encounter with Arizona police takes a bit of time while they confirm status with CBP or DHS.

Dude, seriously... I think you glossed over the OP's post, saw the "AP" thing, and just concluded it's no big deal - this is routine stuff. The beneficiary's uncle submitted a MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE in a K1 VISA CASE! This IS serious! Married people are not eligible for a K1 visa!
Ajay, was there a legal marriage? I know the laws in India are complicated, and depend on the religion of the couple, and who has jurisdiction over the marriage. If the marriage is determined to be legally binding in India then you're screwed. You need to refile a CR1 petition. If it's not legally binding, then you need to try to collect as much evidence to prove this as you can possibly get, and submit it to the consulate.
Whatever possessed you to think it would be prudent to sign a marriage certificate?

Canadians don't need an actual visa in their passport for many types of non-immigrant visas. They can just bring their completed documents to the border entry post, and have it adjudicated on the spot. Exceptions that require a consulate issued visa are E, K, V, A, and G visa applicants.
http://www.consular.canada.usembassy.gov/exceptions.asp
This may be true if you're trying to resolve the issue at the same border post, but you can also address it directly with CBP through the link I cited in my previous post. The DHS TRIP (Traveler Redress Inquiry Program) program was designed specifically for this purpose. If the officer that flagged you was the only option, then you'd be screwed if that officer quit or was reassigned.

Ok, I'm going to play devil's advocate here because someone's got to do it. You said some things in your opening post that give me the feeling that there's a sense of entitlement on both sides here.
You said you work two jobs in order to pay your debts and make payments on land you bought "back home". How much, exactly, are you contributing to the household you live in here in the US? Is he paying all of the household bills, while you keep your earnings for your own personal expenses?
Also, you completely misunderstand the affidavit of support. It is, in no way, an assumption of financial responsibility for you. The affidavit of support is a guarantee by the sponsor to the US government that the immigrant will not collect means tested benefits, and that the sponsor will provide any support NECESSARY to ensure the immigrant is supported at 125% of the poverty guidelines, as long as the affidavit remains in effect. It is not a license for the immigrant to earn a comfortable living while imposing on the sponsor to provide for their living expenses.
To put this in more pragmatic terms, you're not eligible for most means tested benefits until you've been an LPR for five years, but even after that it's highly unlikely you'd be eligible if you're working two jobs. Also, if you're working two jobs then no additional support is NECESSARY to guarantee you are being supported at the minimum level required by the affidavit. The terms of the affidavit are being met, even if he's not supporting you at all. If you didn't have any income, then he'd be obligated to step up and provide you the required minimum level of support.
About that sense of entitlement - I get the feeling that he believes he's entitled to a portion of your income to help pay the household expenses. I also get the feeling that you believe you aren't obligated to give him a nickel because you earned the money, and he signed the affidavit promising to support you. Is either of these remotely true?
Ok fire away!

The answer, in a nutshell, is that she's eligible to apply for adjustment of status if you married her within 90 days of her entry, she's out of status when the I-94 expires, but she continues to be eligible to adjust status even if the I-94 is expired, as long as you remain married.
You're going to get some lectures about being properly prepared, and that you should have had the money saved up before you petitioned for the K1, and blah blah blah. Ignore it. Sometimes, no matter how well you plan, life just happens. A family member dies and you have to pony up a couple thousand dollars to attend the funeral. The transmission on your car blows out and you have to get it fixed or lose your job. Whatever. Sometimes you have to make a decision based on "worst case scenarios", and spend your savings to fix the situation that has the worse potential consequences. Not everyone has the luxury of having a fat savings account as a contingency for every possible scenario that might happen.
Consider the AOS to be a high priority, and take care of it as soon as you are able. Avoid any situation that might result in any interaction with immigration officials between the time the I-94 expires and you get the AOS petition filed.

For the affidavit of support, provide what the consulate specifically asks for. Anything you provide beyond that is your own discretion. If you are well qualified based on income alone then a copy of your tax return and a letter of employment should be enough. The rest of the evidence - paystubs, bank statements, etc. - is superfluous, and would only be helpful if your income is marginal, or you need to use assets (like cash in the bank) to help you qualify.
Your tax return from 3 years ago should not be a problem. If you were married at the end of 2007 then you are eligible to claim married filing status. If you provided a divorce decree that proves your divorce was granted in 2008, then there's no reason for the consulate to question any of it.
When you say civil marriage paperwork "filled out and submitted", exactly what are you referring to? Do you mean you'll have a civil wedding ceremony, or just get a marriage license? What are you talking about submitting, and to whom are you going to submit it? Are you talking about submitting the civil marriage certificate to USCIS?
You can have as many ceremonies as you like. You can have only one legally binding wedding. That legally binding wedding must take place within 90 days of entry with the K1. If the "actual wedding" you refer to is a non-binding ceremony or a renewal of marriage vows, then there's no problem. However, you can't have a second legally binding wedding (second marriage license signed by the priest/pastor/rabbi/imam), nor can you postpone the legally binding wedding until after the 90 day period.

If fast action is important then Darnell's suggestion is probably the best to follow. Send the withdrawal letter to each agency involved. Bear in mind that a withdrawal from you will forever kill the petition. You can't retract the withdrawal if you later change your mind.
Is it possible she's just getting cold feet about leaving her country? It's a really big step, especially if she's a young girl, and it can be very very frightening. Take some time and talk it over with her. She can postpone scheduling the interview, and you could even ask that the validity of the petition be extended to give her more time to think about it. If you're sure that she's backing out because she's not committed to the relationship, and not because she's afraid, then go ahead and send the letter. You could also just wait, and the consulate will eventually let the petition expire and send it back to USCIS.

He's absolutely right. There is no limit on the number of joint sponsors. But, if each joint sponsor must meet the qualifying criteria of 125% of the poverty guidelines for their household size, what would be the point of providing more than one? Once you have one co-sponsor that qualifies, you've met the requirements. Why provide more?
What you alluded to before was your mom and dad both being co-sponsors, and combining their income to meet the requirements. The I-864 provides a way for a household member to specifically join their income with the sponsor in order to help qualify via the I-864A. The I-134 doesn't provide any way to do this.
Yeah, I tend to agree with this. My feeling is that they shouldn't consider her a dependent unless the sponsor specifically says she is dependent on them for support. If they are going to conclude that she is a dependent on the basis of the joint tax return, then they should also be willing to consider her income. But, the consulate can read the evidence any way they choose to.
The national poverty statistics are based on total household income, and not necessarily on the income of a single person. That's all well and good for the purpose of collecting statistical information, but your dad's entire household isn't sponsoring your fiance. The consulate needs a single name on the signature line, and they need to see that the person signing the form meets the requirements to sponsor an immigrant. The last thing they want to do is issue a visa to someone, have them arrive in the US, get married, and then not be able to find a sponsor who qualifies to sign a binding contract to support them for a green card.
This all gets kind of fuzzy because your mom and dad's income is combined on their tax returns. Likewise, you would presume that the dependents they claim are supported from that combined income. It doesn't seem fair that they would consider only his income in determining whether he qualifies, and also consider him entirely responsible for supporting the dependents claimed on the tax return. That would presume that your mother's income isn't used at all in supporting those claimed dependents, which is kind of silly.
If this concerns you, then list your grandmother and your brother as "partially dependent", and have him write a letter explaining that they are both supported from the combined income declared on the joint tax return, so they are only partially dependent on his income alone. If you really want to try to close all the gaps, have your dad include a statement in the letter that he will sign an I-864 when the time comes, and have your mom include a letter stating that she will sign an I-864A. Remember - you're not trying to cross some invisible finish line with a number on a form. You're trying to convince the consular officer that there's no chance your fiance will become a public charge. At this point in the process, that's the only thing a consular officer is charged with determining. Manila can be very picky when it comes to co-sponsors, but it's generally prudent to always provide more than enough evidence to convince them.
Stop worrying. I think you'll be fine.

If fast action is important then Darnell's suggestion is probably the best to follow. Send the withdrawal letter to each agency involved. Bear in mind that a withdrawal from you will forever kill the petition. You can't retract the withdrawal if you later change your mind.
Is it possible she's just getting cold feet about leaving her country? It's a really big step, especially if she's a young girl, and it can be very very frightening. Take some time and talk it over with her. She can postpone scheduling the interview, and you could even ask that the validity of the petition be extended to give her more time to think about it. If you're sure that she's backing out because she's not committed to the relationship, and not because she's afraid, then go ahead and send the letter. You could also just wait, and the consulate will eventually let the petition expire and send it back to USCIS.

This is a complicated situation.
Your profile says "Naturalization". Does this mean you are now a US citizen? If so, then you are eligible to petition for a fiancee visa. If you're still an LPR then you could only petition for a spousal visa, which means you'd have to get married first, and you'd have to wait several years before her priority date came up and she could apply for the visa.
From what I can tell (Minnesota and Chile) you're both old enough to marry without parental consent. Even if you weren't, this isn't a deal breaker for a K1 visa. It would just mean that you'd need a letter of consent from your parents. Being "free to marry" is a critical requirement.
If she left before she was 18, as you said, then she should not have accrued any time out of status in the US. She should also not be liable for any of the bad immigration decisions made by her parents. Her father's being caught at work may have been the best thing to happen to her, in this regard. Things change dramatically if she'd remained in the US illegally after she was 18 years old.
Things are considerably different for her parents. They will likely not be returning legally to the US anytime soon. They face a ban of at least 10 years just for their time of illegal presence. Add to this the fact that the father worked illegally in the US, and used false documents to obtain work, and he could be facing a much longer ban. If his false documents indicated he was a US citizen, then he would almost certainly be banned for life. Of course, all of this depends on the US government discovering these facts.
You're going to have to declare her time spent in the US when you file the petition. Don't try to cover this up. There are serious consequences for any sort of misrepresentation. If you, as a naturalized citizen, knowingly make any false statements on an immigration form then you could have your citizenship revoked. In order to avoid any potential problems with her illegal stay in the US, she should try to come up with evidence to prove she left before she was 18. The circumstances surrounding her illegal stay will definitely need to be explained, but as long as you can prove she entered and left with her parents before she was 18 then it shouldn't be cause for denial.
You may have some trouble with the affidavit of support, which you'll need to provide to her for the visa interview. You, as the petitioner, will be the primary sponsor. You'll need to show income of at least $18,212 per year in order to qualify (assuming you are supporting only yourself and her). If you don't qualify, then you'll need a co-sponsor who does.
From what I see of the consulate reviews, it looks like the US Embassy in Santiago will allow the petitioner to attend the interview with the beneficiary. This often helps. Any chance you can go to Chile for her interview?

It's hard to give an opinion, having only information from an journalist's interview with the visa applicants. It sounds like USCIS examined their financials and determined they didn't meet the requirements of generating substantially more income than is required to support themselves, or having a significant economic impact in the US. If they had gross profits of $38,800 then I would assume they paid their employees from those profits (else they would be NET profits). That wouldn't be enough to pay 3 full time employees at minimum wage. Unless they were one of the few employers in town, it would be hard to argue that they were making a significant economic impact.
If I were an adjudicator, I'd probably also conclude they came primarily to live in the United States rather than to make a substantial investment and oversee the development of an enterprise, which they themselves admitted in the interview. I would probably also conclude that their investment had become marginal (I might have made the same conclusion when they initially applied for the visa before coming to the US), and that they were making no significant economic impact. The few jobs they provided were almost certainly minimum wage, and probably not full time. I don't know about Maine, but many states require employers to provide health insurance and other benefits to full time employees. The fact that they are struggling financially now indicates their business did little more than support them and allow them to hire a few minimum wage workers. They didn't have enough profits to save any money, or reinvest it and grow their business.
I feel sorry for them because they established themselves in the US and put down roots, but the E visa specifically requires that the investor is coming solely to carry on substantial trade or direct the operations of the enterprise they establish. It's not intended to be a means to settle indefinitely in the US. It also requires that their investment does not become marginal. I think there's sufficient justification to say their investment was marginal.

His failure to disclose his immigrant intent created the lie that was determined to be a material misrepresentation. The district director's decision accused him of having immigrant intent at the time of his visa application, but the AAO decision repeatedly cited his intent at the time of his entry as a nonimmigrant, and his failure to disclose this intent to immigration officers, as the source of material misrepresentation.
His counsel specifically cited the CIS operating instructions that say:
Notwithstanding . . . preconceived intent to remain permanently at the time of entry as a nonimmigrant, an adjustment application should not be denied in the exercise of discretion where substantial equities are present in the case.
Pretty much what you've been saying all along. The AAO responded:
We note that the BIA has held, "Operations Instructions generally do not have the force of law. They furnish only general guidance for Service employees and do not confer substantive rights or provide procedures upon which an alien may rely."
They continued:
This particular Operating Instruction appears to derive from cases cited by counsel, Matter of Ibrahim, 18 I&N Dec. 55 (BIA 1981) and Matter of Cavazos, 17 I&N Dec. 215 (BIA 1980). The BIA in Ibrahim confirmed and limited the holding of Cavazos that, where there are significant equities present, the adjustment of an alien based on an approved immediate relative petition should not be denied as a matter of discretion where the sole adverse factor is the alien's "preconceived intent" to immigrate when admitted as a nonimmigrant. Neither Ibrahim nor Cavazos involves an alien charged with fraud under the Act. The question in both cases was the authority of the Attorney General to grant or deny adjustment of status to an otherwise qualified alien as a matter of discretion. In the instant case, the applicant has been charged with fraud and is therefore inadmissible. Discretion to grant or deny adjustment or a waiver of inadmissibility may only be exercised after the applicant has established statutory eligibility for a waiver. The matter on appeal is not one of discretion, but of statutory eligibility.
The preconceived intent and the fraud were not two separable acts. His circumstances and actions constituted evidence of his immigrant intent. Failure to disclose his immigrant intent created the fraud that made him inadmissible. The existence of the fraud removed the discretionary authority of USCIS to grant the AOS - he was no longer eligible.
Your position has been that preconceived intent poses no risk for a relative of a US citizen. Don't worry about it. You can't be denied for it. I would counter by saying you can't be convicted for pulling the trigger, but you CAN be convicted for killing someone. The two acts are not separable. I think it's dangerous to advise people otherwise.

Really? You rejected Cavazos in another thread because it happened before the Illegal Immigration Act of 1986. At the time, I stated that the IIA/1986 did not change that aspect of the INA.
Anyway, the ruling in Cavazos was NOT that preconceived intent was not an adverse factor, nor that it should not be considered. It was that the equity of having a US citizen wife (and child, in that case) was sufficient to override the adverse factor and tilt the balance of discretion toward approval. Lacking any other adverse factors, USCIS is supposed to approve the AOS, which is precisely what I said in this post, and specifically warned that the AOS might be denied if there was any other adverse history with US immigration authorities. You followed up with a post stating that preconceived intent CANNOT be used as a reason for denial for an immediate relative of a US citizen, which is patently false. It simply cannot be the ONLY reason for denial.
In this case, the AAO denied an appeal for a 212(a) waiver. This gets complicated, so bear with me.
The applicant's US citizen sister petitioned for an immigrant visa, which was approved, though the priority date wasn't current yet. The applicant came to the US using a B2 visa. After his arrival, his father (an LPR) filed an immigrant petition for him, which was also approved, and the priority date was also not current. His father became a citizen 5 years later, and upgraded the petition. His priority date was updated, he was immediately eligible for a visa, and filed for adjustment of status. The district director denied the AOS, determining that he entered with preconceived intent, and that his declaration of non-immigrant intent at the time of entry constituted a material misrepresentation - this made him inadmissible under 212(a)(6)(C )(i). He needed a hardship waiver in order to reapply.
His attorney specifically cited Cavazos and Ibrahim in arguing that the preconceived intent should not have been used on it's own to deny his original petition. The AAO ackowledged the precedent cases, but said that neither involved an applicant with the additional factor of material misrepresentation - the material misrepresentation was derived from his essentially lying about his intent at the time he entered. Because of this, they determined that the district director was correct to deny his AOS, and determine he was inadmissibile. They subsequently denied the appeal for the 212(a) waiver, saying he failed to demonstrate sufficient hardship for his parents.
This is why I specifically asked in a previous post whether the OP was asked by CBP about the purpose of her visit to the US, and what her answer was. Since there is evidence she knew at the time of entry that she would attempt to stay in the US, any false or misleading statement to CBP would be enough to conclude that there was material misrepresentation. The evidence of preconceived intent would be the proof of the misrepresentation. That would be enough to deny the AOS, and make her inadmissible.

I think you missed my point. There are plenty of people who entered with a non-immigrant pass with the intention of immigrating, and they successfully adjusted status. There are also others that were denied when they did not intend to immigrate at the time they entered. Your actual intent; i.e., what's going on in your mind, at the time you enter is not ultimately the deciding factor. What determines your fate is what USCIS believes was your intent when you entered. If the evidence is against you, then it won't much matter what your actual intent was.
This is just plain wrong, and that is absolutely not the conclusions the BIA came to in the precedent cases. You are basing your opinion solely on the Battista case. There were mitigating factors in that case, including the fact that the respondent had an approved immigrant visa petition filed by his father that he could have pursued instead of the non-immigrant B2 visa he ultimately obtained. His counsel pointed this out in arguing against the preconceived intent.
In each case the BIA reiterated that adjustment of status is discretionary. The adjudicator is supposed to weigh the positive and negative factors to determine whether adjustment should be granted. They determined that one negative factor - preconceived intent - does not outweigh multiple positive factors. That does NOT mean that preconceived intent is not a negative factor - the BIA emphatically stated in each case that it IS a negative factor, and that it must be considered. If there aren't enough positive factors to outweigh it, then it CAN be used to deny.
It's also worthwhile to note that none of these cases would be in the BIA files if an immigration judge had not already DENIED the adjustment of status. Are you seriously going to recommend that someone risk this because you believe they'll ultimately win when they appeal to the BIA?
This is beginning to get silly. I defy you to point out any BIA case where the board explicitly stated that preconceived intent cannot EVER be used to deny an adjustment of status to the spouse of a US citizen. There is simply no basis for your blanket statement.

Ultimately, it doesn't much matter what the OP's intent was when they crossed the border. It matters what USCIS thinks the OP's intent was at the time. USCIS doesn't read minds, but they do look at evidence.
The OP has a K1 visa application awaiting interview. The OP entered the US and married her USC fiance. Even a superficial investigation (one phone call to the venue would be enough) would reveal that the plans for the marriage were made well in advance of her entry, so she clearly intended to marry when she entered. So far, so good - no laws have been broken, but the K1 application is now void because she's no longer eligible for it.
USCIS will automatically presume that a preconceived intent existed when the applicant applies for adjustment of status within 30 days of entry with many non-immigrant visas or entry passes. They will strongly suspect preconceived intent if the applicant applies between 30 and 60 days of entry. However, USCIS is not supposed to make these automatic presumptions in the case of an immediate relative of a US citizen. They are, instead, supposed to look for actual evidence of preconceived intent. If that evidence is found, and if it is the only adverse factor in the case, then USCIS is supposed to use their discretion and grant the AOS. There is plenty of case law in the Board of Immigration Appeals to back this up, but that case law wouldn't exist if USCIS hadn't used their discretion to deny AOS in exactly these sort of cases in the past. In other words, if USCIS hadn't denied the AOS, there would have been no reason to appeal, and no resulting record of the case.
That said, USCIS generally follows this rule. They will probably look for evidence of preconceived intent. In this case, it wouldn't be difficult to find. If the OP has had no previous problems with immigration authorities in the US, and there are no other adverse factors affecting the case, their AOS will probably be approved. However, any negative history with US immigration, combined with the preconceived intent, would be enough to deny the AOS. For example, if the OP had ever been subjected to secondary inspection because of suspicion of intent to immigrate, that might be enough to tilt the scales on the side of denial.
Remember that AOS is discretionary. You have to prove not only that you are eligible, but that there is not sufficient compelling reason to deny it.

This is a complicated situation.
Your profile says "Naturalization". Does this mean you are now a US citizen? If so, then you are eligible to petition for a fiancee visa. If you're still an LPR then you could only petition for a spousal visa, which means you'd have to get married first, and you'd have to wait several years before her priority date came up and she could apply for the visa.
From what I can tell (Minnesota and Chile) you're both old enough to marry without parental consent. Even if you weren't, this isn't a deal breaker for a K1 visa. It would just mean that you'd need a letter of consent from your parents. Being "free to marry" is a critical requirement.
If she left before she was 18, as you said, then she should not have accrued any time out of status in the US. She should also not be liable for any of the bad immigration decisions made by her parents. Her father's being caught at work may have been the best thing to happen to her, in this regard. Things change dramatically if she'd remained in the US illegally after she was 18 years old.
Things are considerably different for her parents. They will likely not be returning legally to the US anytime soon. They face a ban of at least 10 years just for their time of illegal presence. Add to this the fact that the father worked illegally in the US, and used false documents to obtain work, and he could be facing a much longer ban. If his false documents indicated he was a US citizen, then he would almost certainly be banned for life. Of course, all of this depends on the US government discovering these facts.
You're going to have to declare her time spent in the US when you file the petition. Don't try to cover this up. There are serious consequences for any sort of misrepresentation. If you, as a naturalized citizen, knowingly make any false statements on an immigration form then you could have your citizenship revoked. In order to avoid any potential problems with her illegal stay in the US, she should try to come up with evidence to prove she left before she was 18. The circumstances surrounding her illegal stay will definitely need to be explained, but as long as you can prove she entered and left with her parents before she was 18 then it shouldn't be cause for denial.
You may have some trouble with the affidavit of support, which you'll need to provide to her for the visa interview. You, as the petitioner, will be the primary sponsor. You'll need to show income of at least $18,212 per year in order to qualify (assuming you are supporting only yourself and her). If you don't qualify, then you'll need a co-sponsor who does.
From what I see of the consulate reviews, it looks like the US Embassy in Santiago will allow the petitioner to attend the interview with the beneficiary. This often helps. Any chance you can go to Chile for her interview?

Really? You rejected Cavazos in another thread because it happened before the Illegal Immigration Act of 1986. At the time, I stated that the IIA/1986 did not change that aspect of the INA.
Anyway, the ruling in Cavazos was NOT that preconceived intent was not an adverse factor, nor that it should not be considered. It was that the equity of having a US citizen wife (and child, in that case) was sufficient to override the adverse factor and tilt the balance of discretion toward approval. Lacking any other adverse factors, USCIS is supposed to approve the AOS, which is precisely what I said in this post, and specifically warned that the AOS might be denied if there was any other adverse history with US immigration authorities. You followed up with a post stating that preconceived intent CANNOT be used as a reason for denial for an immediate relative of a US citizen, which is patently false. It simply cannot be the ONLY reason for denial.
In this case, the AAO denied an appeal for a 212(a) waiver. This gets complicated, so bear with me.
The applicant's US citizen sister petitioned for an immigrant visa, which was approved, though the priority date wasn't current yet. The applicant came to the US using a B2 visa. After his arrival, his father (an LPR) filed an immigrant petition for him, which was also approved, and the priority date was also not current. His father became a citizen 5 years later, and upgraded the petition. His priority date was updated, he was immediately eligible for a visa, and filed for adjustment of status. The district director denied the AOS, determining that he entered with preconceived intent, and that his declaration of non-immigrant intent at the time of entry constituted a material misrepresentation - this made him inadmissible under 212(a)(6)(C )(i). He needed a hardship waiver in order to reapply.
His attorney specifically cited Cavazos and Ibrahim in arguing that the preconceived intent should not have been used on it's own to deny his original petition. The AAO ackowledged the precedent cases, but said that neither involved an applicant with the additional factor of material misrepresentation - the material misrepresentation was derived from his essentially lying about his intent at the time he entered. Because of this, they determined that the district director was correct to deny his AOS, and determine he was inadmissibile. They subsequently denied the appeal for the 212(a) waiver, saying he failed to demonstrate sufficient hardship for his parents.
This is why I specifically asked in a previous post whether the OP was asked by CBP about the purpose of her visit to the US, and what her answer was. Since there is evidence she knew at the time of entry that she would attempt to stay in the US, any false or misleading statement to CBP would be enough to conclude that there was material misrepresentation. The evidence of preconceived intent would be the proof of the misrepresentation. That would be enough to deny the AOS, and make her inadmissible.

No, I'm not a cop. My next door neighbor is a cop, and he loves to talk.
Cops get called in cases of domestic disputes frequently. Many times, one person will make an accusation of abuse against the other. The cop will look for evidence of the abuse. If he finds any evidence - bruises, scratches, torn clothing, whatever - he's compelled to make an arrest. Why? Because there's evidence that a crime occurred, and there's a witness (the abused) who made a statement about who committed the crime. It may not necessarily result in a conviction, but it meets the minimum requirements - evidence of a crime, and evidence identifying the perpetrator.
There are a lot of divorce cases where one party wants evidence of abuse against the other, either because they are divorcing "for cause", or because they want leverage against the other party, perhaps for child custody. They call the cops to make a report of abuse. The cop will do the same thing he would do if he'd been called during the dispute - look for evidence that the abuse occurred. If he finds it, he'll take the report, though if the complainant isn't in immediate danger he may not make an arrest. If he doesn't find any evidence, then the investigation stops right there. Without evidence that a crime occurred, there is nothing further to investigate. An accusation by the alleged victim may be relevant to a family court judge during a divorce hearing, but it's not enough for a cop to open a criminal investigation. As I said, it isn't the cops job to certify an accusation of abuse. It's his job to determine if a crime was committed, to investigate the crime, and to arrest the perpetrator.
This has nothing to do with cops taking one side over the other. It has to do with cops doing their job.
As far as battered women not reporting the crime because they fear the abuser, I have absolutely no doubt this is true. Unfortunately, there are not enough cops to assign every battered woman a personal protector. I wish this were not the case, but this is the reality of the society we live in. More often than not, there will not be a cop to protect you when you need one. Cops usually respond after the crime has been committed. The courts are also little help. They can issue a restraining order, but a piece of paper is not much protection. They can't arrest and detain the abuser indefinitely because he may commit another crime in the future. This is the reality of living in a country where people have rights. People are often left to defend themselves against aggressors, and seek justice from the cops and courts afterward. A woman in this situation needs to seek protection, and not rely on the cops to protect her. A battered woman's shelter is a start. A body guard is also good. She could also get a gun and learn how to use it. If the abuser shows up and threatens her then she can call the cops, but first and foremost she needs to take measures to protect herself because the cops probably won't be there when they're needed.
My point of view is irrelevant, and I never said anything to either trivialize what abused woman go through, nor to indict the entire system because some people abuse it. I explained, in a rational way, why a cop would not take a report when he was not offered any evidence that a crime was committed, in spite of the fact that many women might ask him to do so.

Honestly, I think there is ample evidence that you intended to immigrate when you crossed the border. The big question is whether USCIS will discover any of this evidence, and whether they'll use it as a reason to deny your AOS. As I said, they aren't supposed to presume preconceived intent with the spouse of a US citizen, but they will certainly investigate it. They won't have to dig very deep to find sufficient evidence - your wedding was planned well in advance, and you quit your job before coming to the US. They can get this information with a few phone calls.
Did the CBP ask you any questions when you entered the US? Did they ask you why you were visiting the US? If so, what did you say? This could become extremely relevant if they conclude that you had preconceived intent to immigrate. If you told the CBP that you were just coming to visit, and they determine you knew you were coming to stay, then they've got you - material misrepresentation, and a possible lifetime ban from the US.
You have a couple of options. If you choose to try to adjust status, there's a pretty good chance you'll be successful. There's also a huge risk if you are denied - a potential lifetime ban. Or, you could withdraw your K1 visa application, your husband could submit a CR1 petition, and you could enjoy the rest of your allowed stay with your new husband before returning to Canada to wait for your CR1 interview.
The choice is yours.

Ultimately, it doesn't much matter what the OP's intent was when they crossed the border. It matters what USCIS thinks the OP's intent was at the time. USCIS doesn't read minds, but they do look at evidence.
The OP has a K1 visa application awaiting interview. The OP entered the US and married her USC fiance. Even a superficial investigation (one phone call to the venue would be enough) would reveal that the plans for the marriage were made well in advance of her entry, so she clearly intended to marry when she entered. So far, so good - no laws have been broken, but the K1 application is now void because she's no longer eligible for it.
USCIS will automatically presume that a preconceived intent existed when the applicant applies for adjustment of status within 30 days of entry with many non-immigrant visas or entry passes. They will strongly suspect preconceived intent if the applicant applies between 30 and 60 days of entry. However, USCIS is not supposed to make these automatic presumptions in the case of an immediate relative of a US citizen. They are, instead, supposed to look for actual evidence of preconceived intent. If that evidence is found, and if it is the only adverse factor in the case, then USCIS is supposed to use their discretion and grant the AOS. There is plenty of case law in the Board of Immigration Appeals to back this up, but that case law wouldn't exist if USCIS hadn't used their discretion to deny AOS in exactly these sort of cases in the past. In other words, if USCIS hadn't denied the AOS, there would have been no reason to appeal, and no resulting record of the case.
That said, USCIS generally follows this rule. They will probably look for evidence of preconceived intent. In this case, it wouldn't be difficult to find. If the OP has had no previous problems with immigration authorities in the US, and there are no other adverse factors affecting the case, their AOS will probably be approved. However, any negative history with US immigration, combined with the preconceived intent, would be enough to deny the AOS. For example, if the OP had ever been subjected to secondary inspection because of suspicion of intent to immigrate, that might be enough to tilt the scales on the side of denial.
Remember that AOS is discretionary. You have to prove not only that you are eligible, but that there is not sufficient compelling reason to deny it.

His failure to disclose his immigrant intent created the lie that was determined to be a material misrepresentation. The district director's decision accused him of having immigrant intent at the time of his visa application, but the AAO decision repeatedly cited his intent at the time of his entry as a nonimmigrant, and his failure to disclose this intent to immigration officers, as the source of material misrepresentation.
His counsel specifically cited the CIS operating instructions that say:
Notwithstanding . . . preconceived intent to remain permanently at the time of entry as a nonimmigrant, an adjustment application should not be denied in the exercise of discretion where substantial equities are present in the case.
Pretty much what you've been saying all along. The AAO responded:
We note that the BIA has held, "Operations Instructions generally do not have the force of law. They furnish only general guidance for Service employees and do not confer substantive rights or provide procedures upon which an alien may rely."
They continued:
This particular Operating Instruction appears to derive from cases cited by counsel, Matter of Ibrahim, 18 I&N Dec. 55 (BIA 1981) and Matter of Cavazos, 17 I&N Dec. 215 (BIA 1980). The BIA in Ibrahim confirmed and limited the holding of Cavazos that, where there are significant equities present, the adjustment of an alien based on an approved immediate relative petition should not be denied as a matter of discretion where the sole adverse factor is the alien's "preconceived intent" to immigrate when admitted as a nonimmigrant. Neither Ibrahim nor Cavazos involves an alien charged with fraud under the Act. The question in both cases was the authority of the Attorney General to grant or deny adjustment of status to an otherwise qualified alien as a matter of discretion. In the instant case, the applicant has been charged with fraud and is therefore inadmissible. Discretion to grant or deny adjustment or a waiver of inadmissibility may only be exercised after the applicant has established statutory eligibility for a waiver. The matter on appeal is not one of discretion, but of statutory eligibility.
The preconceived intent and the fraud were not two separable acts. His circumstances and actions constituted evidence of his immigrant intent. Failure to disclose his immigrant intent created the fraud that made him inadmissible. The existence of the fraud removed the discretionary authority of USCIS to grant the AOS - he was no longer eligible.
Your position has been that preconceived intent poses no risk for a relative of a US citizen. Don't worry about it. You can't be denied for it. I would counter by saying you can't be convicted for pulling the trigger, but you CAN be convicted for killing someone. The two acts are not separable. I think it's dangerous to advise people otherwise.

The consensus on the legal blogs I've read is that this is being done to save money. A lot of manpower is needed for initial screening and fee processing, and USCIS can save considerable money by not duplicating the capability to perform this service at each service center. The lockbox system is the central hub of USCIS' direct filing system, and it's been their plan for some time to gradually transition to using the lockbox system as the central intake for many petitions.
Though USCIS will forward improperly filed petitions to the lockbox during the transition period, at least one lawyer's blog says you can probably expect this would add a 6 to 8 week delay to your petition processing, based on prior performance by USCIS when transitioning other forms to the lockbox.
http://www.masudafunai.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=5833
I seriously doubt this has anything whatever to do with speculative planning for any amnesty program. I can't fathom any agency of the US government taking action when no final legislation has even been proposed yet, both the legislative and executive branches have conceded that there's little chance any immigration reform bill is going to happen this year, and it's far from clear what the makeup of the House and Senate are going to look like after the November elections, though it's a foregone conclusion it will be less Democratic. Recent polls also show overwhelming support for securing the borders, and relatively little support for any sort of amnesty program. With the current public temperament, it would be political suicide for any politician to back an amnesty program except as an amendment to a strict border security bill. With the shifting political mood, and the changing of the guard on Capital Hill, I would expect to see legislation on border security before legislation on any sort of amnesty program, and I wouldn't expect to see either one anytime soon.

No, I'm not a cop. My next door neighbor is a cop, and he loves to talk.
Cops get called in cases of domestic disputes frequently. Many times, one person will make an accusation of abuse against the other. The cop will look for evidence of the abuse. If he finds any evidence - bruises, scratches, torn clothing, whatever - he's compelled to make an arrest. Why? Because there's evidence that a crime occurred, and there's a witness (the abused) who made a statement about who committed the crime. It may not necessarily result in a conviction, but it meets the minimum requirements - evidence of a crime, and evidence identifying the perpetrator.
There are a lot of divorce cases where one party wants evidence of abuse against the other, either because they are divorcing "for cause", or because they want leverage against the other party, perhaps for child custody. They call the cops to make a report of abuse. The cop will do the same thing he would do if he'd been called during the dispute - look for evidence that the abuse occurred. If he finds it, he'll take the report, though if the complainant isn't in immediate danger he may not make an arrest. If he doesn't find any evidence, then the investigation stops right there. Without evidence that a crime occurred, there is nothing further to investigate. An accusation by the alleged victim may be relevant to a family court judge during a divorce hearing, but it's not enough for a cop to open a criminal investigation. As I said, it isn't the cops job to certify an accusation of abuse. It's his job to determine if a crime was committed, to investigate the crime, and to arrest the perpetrator.
This has nothing to do with cops taking one side over the other. It has to do with cops doing their job.
As far as battered women not reporting the crime because they fear the abuser, I have absolutely no doubt this is true. Unfortunately, there are not enough cops to assign every battered woman a personal protector. I wish this were not the case, but this is the reality of the society we live in. More often than not, there will not be a cop to protect you when you need one. Cops usually respond after the crime has been committed. The courts are also little help. They can issue a restraining order, but a piece of paper is not much protection. They can't arrest and detain the abuser indefinitely because he may commit another crime in the future. This is the reality of living in a country where people have rights. People are often left to defend themselves against aggressors, and seek justice from the cops and courts afterward. A woman in this situation needs to seek protection, and not rely on the cops to protect her. A battered woman's shelter is a start. A body guard is also good. She could also get a gun and learn how to use it. If the abuser shows up and threatens her then she can call the cops, but first and foremost she needs to take measures to protect herself because the cops probably won't be there when they're needed.
My point of view is irrelevant, and I never said anything to either trivialize what abused woman go through, nor to indict the entire system because some people abuse it. I explained, in a rational way, why a cop would not take a report when he was not offered any evidence that a crime was committed, in spite of the fact that many women might ask him to do so.

Her husband is military, and he's on deployment in Afghanistan. He's got a pretty good excuse for not making it to the interview.