JimVaPhuong

I'm not laughing, and I never implied it was funny. I approached my last divorce with the same determination that I approached the visa and immigration process for my current wife. I read large portions of the California Family Code repeatedly. I've been through FCS, and fought vigorously for custody of my daughter, which I eventually won. My divorce took nearly 5 1/2 years to finish, so I was immersed in the process for a long period of time. The child custody alone took more than a year to resolve, though I suppose you could say it's never really resolved since custody is temporary by nature, and can change any time a parent wants to return to court.
During that time I read the family code, numerous articles on divorce and child custody in California, and spoke with numerous lawyers, including many hours with my own attorney. Never once did anyone mention anything about preference being given to the parent who had default custody (i.e., who was living with the child) at the time the divorce was filed, or a motion for custody was entered.
By the way, I was the father I referred to in my previous post, and my ex-wife was the unemployed, homeless, crack addict.

Normally, permission is required from both parents in order to obtain a passport for a minor child. However, one parent can obtain a passport if they can convince the Department of State that the permission of the other parent is not required. Examples are if the other parent is dead, or the parent submitting the application has sole custody of the child, etc. There have been cases where people have submitted fraudulent documentation and obtained passports for their minor children without consent from the other parent, even though consent was legally required. To be honest, Department of State simply cannot always verify that the submitted documentation is valid because the federal government is not the custodian of the records which are submitted - each state handles that. Consequently, there have been cases of parental international child abduction in spite of DoS's best efforts to prevent them.
Contact the Department of State's Children's Passport Issuance Alert Program and enroll your son.
http://travel.state.gov/abduction/prevention/passportissuance/passportissuance_554.html
You will be notified if there is any attempt to obtain a passport for him.
It sounds like you're sure that this marriage is on the rocks. Hire a divorce attorney and get busy.

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.

Do you mean F2B? I've never heard of F1B.
The short answer is no - you should not be automatically denied. You are automatically denied if you are determined to be inadmissible. An overstay of less than 180 days would not result in a ban, so you would not be inadmissible for that reason. That doesn't mean you won't be denied for other inadmissibilities. How long have you been in the US on H1 status? Is your priority date for your family based visa current?

Normally, permission is required from both parents in order to obtain a passport for a minor child. However, one parent can obtain a passport if they can convince the Department of State that the permission of the other parent is not required. Examples are if the other parent is dead, or the parent submitting the application has sole custody of the child, etc. There have been cases where people have submitted fraudulent documentation and obtained passports for their minor children without consent from the other parent, even though consent was legally required. To be honest, Department of State simply cannot always verify that the submitted documentation is valid because the federal government is not the custodian of the records which are submitted - each state handles that. Consequently, there have been cases of parental international child abduction in spite of DoS's best efforts to prevent them.
Contact the Department of State's Children's Passport Issuance Alert Program and enroll your son.
http://travel.state.gov/abduction/prevention/passportissuance/passportissuance_554.html
You will be notified if there is any attempt to obtain a passport for him.
It sounds like you're sure that this marriage is on the rocks. Hire a divorce attorney and get busy.

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.

My wife is in the other room right now watching videos on youtube about VN boat people with her daughter. My wife is old enough to remember the war and the aftermath, and to see what has become of her country. She doesn't have any doubt which is the communist country.
FWIW, there are plenty of illegal Vietnamese people in the US. It's true that they don't just walk across the border. Most entered legally and just stayed. Some were smuggled across the border from Canada. There's a street in Oakland, about a 20 minute drive from where I live, that has about two dozen hair and nail salons in a six block stretch. Almost every girl who works in those salons is Vietnamese. Probably half are not legal. It's common knowledge in the VN community here. ICE occasionally conducts raids there, but people in the city government always tip off the shop owners so that the illegal workers stay home.
There was a major fraud ring that was broken up not long ago on the east coast that involved a VN woman who was arranging sham marriages to bring girls to work in her shops. These people are just as much a part of the problem as the girls from remote impoverished villages who scam an American into bringing them to the US. Every one of them makes it harder for us to bring over a wife or fiancee from VN.
There are two major schools of thought regarding immigration in the US right now. Those who favor "immigration reform" are mostly in favor of granting legal status to the illegals who are already here, and streamlining the process for the ones who want to come here, and they are concerned almost exclusively with Mexicans and South Americans. Those who favor "immigration enforcement" want to see the illegals who are here thrown out, and a huge wall built along the southern border to stop any more from coming in. They also want to see a clamp down on legal immigrants so that no American loses his or her job to an immigrant. The rest of us are either a combination of these two viewpoints, or somewhere on the fringe.
Unfortunately, the people who would be sympathetic to making it easier to bring a wife or fiancee to the US are also the people who favor amnesty for illegals and opening the southern border. That's a popular position with many politicians these days, but polls indicate it's not a popular position with most Americans. On the other hand, the sort of policy reforms I was suggesting would probably be popular with most Americans. They would see those changes as a crack down on immigration because they seem to make it more difficult to get permanent legal status in the US. In reality, they would make it easier on us because they would reduce fraud, and reducing fraud will make it easier to get a visa.

Agree 100%, with a caveat - there is a substantial vocal minority that would like to see immigration eased substantially for people from Mexico, and to a lesser degree from all of South America. This is only because Mexicans are far and away the largest group of immigrants in the US, both legal and illegal. The represent a substantial voting bloc for whichever party is willing to suck up to them (usually the Democrats).
Practically all other Americans, including most non-Mexican immigrants, want to see immigration further restricted.
Personally, I don't want to see immigration either eased or restricted. I think the current limits for visa quotas are reasonable, and I think the lack of quotas for certain immediate relatives and fiancee's of US citizens is fair. What I WOULD like to see changed is the methods used to screen applicants who apply for these visas. Too much of the decision is arbitrary, and up to the whims of a consular officer.
I also think some changes in the law would dramatically cut down on immigration fraud, and reduce the number of arbitrary denials at the consulates. For instance, increase the length of conditional status to 10 years, with no possibility of a waiver for a divorce obtained less than 5 years after the conditional green card is issued. Very few scammers will be able to sit out a sham marriage for 5 years, and the USC petitioner will be able to figure out if he/she has been scammed in that amount of time and pull the plug on the marriage.
Remove the clause that allows an immigrant to adjust status or remove conditions based on abuse. Leave the hardship waiver, but add a clause that allows the fact that someone has abandoned their life in their home country, and established a productive life in the US to be considered in granting the hardship waiver. In other words, being forced to leave a productive life in the US should be considered an additional hardship for the purpose of the waiver. No more US citizens would ever be falsely accused of spousal abuse in a scam to get a green card or remove conditions.
Ok, I know some people are going to argue that it's not fair for an immigrant to be deported just because they got beat up by their US citizen spouse and had to get a divorce. The hardship waiver would be available for them. But getting beat up should not automatically qualify someone for an immigration benefit. The federal government doesn't offer rewards to US citizens who get beat up by their spouse, so they shouldn't be offering one to immigrants either. If the immigrant will continue to be a productive member of US society, then they should be able to get a hardship waiver (with the changes I described above). If they've been a couch potato since they arrived here, why should they be given a green card and allowed to stay if they got beat up?

It sounds like you're being set up. First, let's assume her goal is to get out of the marriage and get a green card that is no longer conditional on your marriage. There are four ways to do this; spouse died, got a divorce or annulment, was abused by spouse, or extreme hardship. You aren't dead, and extreme hardship waivers are extremely difficult to obtain, so let's concentrate on the other two.
Both the divorce waiver and the abuse waiver (also called VAWA) require proof that the immigrant entered the marriage in good faith. This means proof they lived as a married couple.
Virginia generally has a 1 year separation requirement before absolute divorce. This complicates things for her. She can't file for the divorce right away as it would work against her good faith evidence. She can't wait too long to file or the divorce won't be completed before she is required to file the I-751 to remove conditions. In fact, if any aspect of the divorce is contested then it could drag on for years.
On the other hand, if she has evidence you abused her then she can file for removal of conditions based on the abuse, and she won't have to get the divorce first. What's more, the abuse can be used as grounds for the divorce.
As others have stated, you can't withdraw the affidavit of support. Your window of opportunity to do that ended when the conditional green card was approved. Fortunately, you probably won't have to worry about it for a while. The government isn't going to come after you unless she collects means tested benefits, and she won't be eligible for most of those until she's been an LPR for 5 years. She could try to use the affidavit as a basis for spousal support, but that rarely works with family courts - they already have guidelines in the state family code that dictate how they award spousal support. She could go to a civil court and sue you, but they may not be willing to enforce an ex-parte contract (she's not a party to the contract - you and the US government are). She might have better luck in a federal court.
It sucks when this sort of thing happens.

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.

First, she's not approved yet. They would not approve her visa application without that police report, since the police report could reveal a potential inadmissibility. It may be true, however, that there is nothing else holding up her approval except for that police report. Until they get the report, her case is in limbo.
The reason for the 4 month expiration of the petition is so that the consulates aren't forced to sit on a petition indefinitely while waiting for the applicant to submit documents. They'll usually automatically extend the validity of the approval if the delay is caused by the consulate. However, if the petition expires while they're waiting on documents from the applicant then they may want confirmation that the applicant intends to continue with the application. Otherwise, they may consider the application abandoned and return the petition to USCIS. If you don't have the documents yet, all you usually need to do is ask them to extend the validity of the petition. It sounds like you've done this, but they haven't confirmed it.
Most consulates will not extend the validity of the petition indefinitely while waiting for documents from the applicant. Typically, they'll continue to extend the validity of the petition for up to one year, sometimes requiring regular requests for extensions (this varies from one consulate to another). After that, they'll just consider the application abandoned. When they said you had until October to submit the police report, they may have meant that they would reach the maximum length of extensions at that point. Has your petition approval already been extended once; i.e., was the petition originally approved in October?
They aren't required to assume the application has been abandoned on the day the petition expires, but they are permitted to do so. Sending an email telling you that the validity of the petition has expired was probably their way of saying "Is there any reason we should continue to keep this case open?". You responded that you intend to continue to pursue the visa, which is really all you can do, though you should probably keep trying to get a confirmation that they've extended the validity of the petition. Can you call them?

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.

It sounds like you're being set up. First, let's assume her goal is to get out of the marriage and get a green card that is no longer conditional on your marriage. There are four ways to do this; spouse died, got a divorce or annulment, was abused by spouse, or extreme hardship. You aren't dead, and extreme hardship waivers are extremely difficult to obtain, so let's concentrate on the other two.
Both the divorce waiver and the abuse waiver (also called VAWA) require proof that the immigrant entered the marriage in good faith. This means proof they lived as a married couple.
Virginia generally has a 1 year separation requirement before absolute divorce. This complicates things for her. She can't file for the divorce right away as it would work against her good faith evidence. She can't wait too long to file or the divorce won't be completed before she is required to file the I-751 to remove conditions. In fact, if any aspect of the divorce is contested then it could drag on for years.
On the other hand, if she has evidence you abused her then she can file for removal of conditions based on the abuse, and she won't have to get the divorce first. What's more, the abuse can be used as grounds for the divorce.
As others have stated, you can't withdraw the affidavit of support. Your window of opportunity to do that ended when the conditional green card was approved. Fortunately, you probably won't have to worry about it for a while. The government isn't going to come after you unless she collects means tested benefits, and she won't be eligible for most of those until she's been an LPR for 5 years. She could try to use the affidavit as a basis for spousal support, but that rarely works with family courts - they already have guidelines in the state family code that dictate how they award spousal support. She could go to a civil court and sue you, but they may not be willing to enforce an ex-parte contract (she's not a party to the contract - you and the US government are). She might have better luck in a federal court.
It sucks when this sort of thing happens.

Meh. I've been to Chinatown after sundown many times. Some of the best restaurants are only open for dinner. Chinatown doesn't really begin to take on any real sense of personality until after dark. The biggest problem you're likely to have in Chinatown is aggressive panhandlers. Stay out of the back streets and alleys, but that applies to any part of any big city anywhere in the world.

In all fairness CJ, you probably should have known it was coming.
You posted advice that many (most?) here would consider dangerous. At best, your letter will be politely ignored by USCIS, and they'll respond with an RFE for a signed affidavit of support. At worst, they'll consider your letter to be a refusal to supply the requested documentation, and they'll deny the AOS petition. This is my opinion, but I'm sure it's shared by most people here.
Being a member of this forum for as long as you have been, you must have known that your advice would not go unchallenged. In fact, most here feel compelled to correct advice they believe is wrong or potentially dangerous. Yes, people do make sweeping statements (including myself) that X or Y is not possible, when in fact it is possible but just highly unlikely or fraught with unnecessary risk.
The neophytes who visit this forum, and who are capable of little more than following a checklist, might see your advice and believe that they too can do the same thing. This is why people are so adamant to jump when they see what they consider to be bad advice. You don't know yet whether your approach will work, so it's premature to announce it. Who knows - maybe they'll grant the AOS and commend you for standing up for yourself. If they do, then there will be plenty of crow to go around, and all of us "haters" will get a heaping helping.
I don't think people are saying that relationships don't fall apart, or that well meaning US citizens don't get duped by foreigners. There are enough cases on this site alone to write enough soap opera episodes for a half dozen seasons of daytime TV. What they're saying is that marrying a foreigner is definitely a plunge into the deep end of the pool. The level of commitment required is above and beyond what is required for a casual relationship with the girl next door. The US government absolutely requires it to be this way because they're giving your significant other a pass to the front of the immigration line, at the risk you may be helping yet another deadbeat gain legal status in the US. They expect you to share that risk.
I know of a number of cases where the affidavit has not been used successfully by an immigrant to get support payments. I also know of a few where it has been used successfully. If you've got links to any relevant case law I'd love to read about it. I love to cite actual cases when I make statements on this site.

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.

The public charge determination is at the discretion of the consulate when issuing a visa, and USCIS when adjudicating an adjustment of status application. Strictly speaking, 212(a)(4) doesn't absolutely require USCIS to get an affidavit of support from a sponsor. However, if they do require it, then section 213A spells out the requirements for the affidavit itself.
In other words, the adjudicator actually has it within his discretion to grant the AOS without the affidavit. He's not bound by law to require it. However, if he does actually grant the AOS without an affidavit then it certainly isn't because you decided to put your foot down and refuse to submit it, but because he felt there was virtually zero chance your wife would ever become a public charge. Your letter stating that you shouldn't be required to support your wife after divorce, using federal guidelines and potentially for life, is not going to instill them with much confidence. Your basically saying you don't think it's fair for you to assume this risk, so you want the taxpayers of the US to assume it instead.
This has nothing to do with spousal support. If you married and divorced a US citizen, the family court might order you to pay spousal support for a fixed period of time, generally long enough for your ex-wife to get on her feet and reenter the workforce. If she still couldn't support herself after that then she'd no longer be your problem, but she could get assistance from the government if she qualified, at the expense of the taxpayers. This is precisely what the affidavit of support is meant to prevent. The law protects the taxpayers from being stuck with the check in the event a US citizen gets involved in a bad relationship with a foreigner. The same rules apply to anyone sponsoring an immigrant, including family members and employers.
I'm mildly curious to see how this turns out, but I'm pretty certain they're going to require you to sign an I-864 or they'll refuse to issue the green card.
Good luck!

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.

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.

You're talking about a conviction for a crime of moral turpitude. I'm talking about simple prostitution, without ever having been charged or convicted. They are two entirely different subsections of INA section 212. Subsection 2(A) covers convictions for certain crimes, including crimes of moral turpitude. Subsection 2(D) covers prostitution. Section 212(a) is on this page at USCIS:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=act
It says:
(D) Prostitution and commercialized vice.-Any alien who-
(i) is coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitution, or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status,
Subsection (F ) of that section says:
(F ) Waiver authorized.-For provision authorizing waiver of certain subparagraphs of this paragraph, see subsection (h).
With me so far? Subsection (h) is on this page:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=act
It says:
(h) The Attorney General may, in his discretion, waive the application of subparagraphs (A)(i)(I), (B), (D), and (E) of subsection (a)(2) and subparagraph (A)(i)(II) of such subsection insofar as it relates to a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana if-
(1) (A) in the case of any immigrant it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that-
(i) the alien is inadmissible only under subparagraph (D)(i) or (D)(ii) of such subsection or the activities for which the alien is inadmissible occurred more than 15 years before the date of the alien's application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status.
So, if she's inadmissible because she was a prostitute, and that is her ONLY inadmissibility, then she's eligible for a waiver. Being eligible for a waiver and actually getting one are two entirely different things. The US citizen petitioner will have to prove that it will be an undue hardship on himself if she is not given a visa. These waivers are difficult, time consuming, and (if an attorney is hired, which is recommended) can be expensive to get.
Just a personal note - Your friend might want to consider that some lines, once crossed, are very easy to cross again. Examples that come to mind are use of addictive drugs, certain types of criminal activity, and prostitution. The statistical odds that she'll return to prostitution if and when she ever arrives in the US are pretty good. If your friend is only "shopping" then he might consider looking for a girl who is less likely to be a problem before, during, and after immigration.

How much is the lawyer charging for this advice? If he told her the truth, he wouldn't be able to make any money from her. On the other hand, he can collect a tidy fee for filing her application, which will ultimately be denied and result in her deportation.
There is no "mercy". USCIS follows the law. It's that simple. She would not be eligible for amnesty, and have her illegal entry forgiven, unless she'd been continuously resident in the US since 1972. She's not eligible to adjust status because of her illegal entry, regardless of her marriage to a US citizen. Her previous employment authorization could not have been legally obtained, and if she's currently working then she's doing so illegally.
If she leaves the US and has her husband petition for a visa, she will be denied at the consulate because she will be banned from the US for at least 10 years because of the length of her illegal stay. If they determine there was any material misrepresentation involved in her previously obtaining a work permit (did she use somebody else's Social Security number?) then she could be banned for life.
She faces an uphill battle. She might be better to sit it out and hope that Obama comes through with some new sort of amnesty program. Many people on this site (myself included) are strongly opposed to this ever happening.

Well, this topic is bound to get moved, but what the he!!... I'll jump in!
I often avoid posting in VAWA topics for the same reasons you described. Often, I'm just not sure if I would be offering my condolences or advice to someone whose sole intention is getting a green card, regardless of whose lives they might be ruining in the process. Sure, they write a compelling and heartbreaking story. I'm sure many of them are sincere, and are genuinely being abused. I'm equally sure many of them are not sincere, and the accusation of abuse is a fraud. There's just no way to tell the difference from reading a post on an internet forum.
Ever since I learned about VAWA, it's been my opinion that it was a huge loophole in the immigration law, and that the people who wrote this law, although they may have had good intentions, did not adequately consider the potential for it to be abused. If the only thing at stake here was a green card, then I would be only mildly bothered by this law. But, the reputation of the US citizen is also at stake. The evidence required for a successful VAWA petition includes a credible accusation of abuse against the US citizen. This evidence is far too easy to conjure up. Have a friend sock you in the eye, and call the cops. Voila! The US citizen spouse spends the night in jail, and the immigrant heads for the battered women's shelter, ready to prepare their VAWA petition.
In my opinion (which is worthless), VAWA should provide for compensation - protection, financial support, etc. - but it should NOT automatically convey any immigration status. By offering a green card as a reward, there is just too much incentive to lie and cheat.

The sponsor assumes an obligation to ensure that the immigrant is supported at 125% of the poverty guidelines (minimum), and to ensure that the immigrant does not collect means tested benefits from the government. However, USCIS has no authority to enforce this. Only a court can order the petitioner to pay. If the immigrant collects means tested benefits, then the government could take the sponsor to court to seek reimbursement. If the immigrant is not being supported at 125% of the poverty guidelines (minimum) then the immigrant can take the sponsor to court. Until SOMEBODY takes the sponsor to court and gets an order for payments, nobody is going to collect anything from him.
Read the I-864 contract carefully. It says the government can sue the sponsor, and the immigrant can sue the sponsor. It does not say that the sponsor is automatically obligated to start writing checks as soon as either the government or the immigrant demand it. Only a court order can force him to begin making payments.
In addition, immigrants have had mixed results trying to get a court to enforce the I-864. Family courts in many states won't touch it because the state's often have strict guidelines the judge has to follow in ordering support, and there are no provisions in the state's family code for an affidavit of support. Civil courts in many states won't touch it because the the contract is between the sponsor and the US government, and the state's civil code won't allow a 3rd party to sue to enforce a contract. The odds of getting a judgment are better in a federal court.
To the OP, your husband is bound by this contract whether you remain married or get divorced. I have no idea why he's thinking that a divorce would somehow change this. Tell him to talk to a lawyer about it. You can still get a divorce without his cooperation, but it will probably take longer.
As far as alimony is concerned, most states rarely award it anymore. It has largely been replaced by spousal support, which is more equitable and gender neutral. Many states aren't compelled to order spousal support if the marriage is of short duration (5 years is typical). Who pays the support, and the amount that must be paid, depends on who is earning more money. It is not uncommon for a wife to be ordered to pay her husband spousal support.

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.

As payxibka alluded to previously, this is no longer true. USCIS used to routinely deny an I-751 filed with a divorce waiver request if a copy of the divorce decree was not included. They changed that policy last year. Now they will send an RFE for the divorce decree at the time the I-751 is adjudicated, which is likely to be several months after it is sent. If a copy of the divorce decree can be submitted in response to the RFE then they'll continue processing the I-751. Otherwise, they'll begin removal proceedings. When it gets to the point of a hearing with an immigration judge you can ask for the proceedings to be postponed until the divorce can be settled.
So, while it's true that they won't approve the I-751 without a copy of the divorce decree, you should still file before the conditional green card has expired. This will protect your status and give you a little more time to get the divorce finalized.