JimVaPhuong

A green card is permission to live and work in the United States. Someone who does not actually intend to live in the United States has no need for a green card. They are a visitor, and a non-immigrant visitors visa would be more appropriate for them. Yes, immigration is not necessarily forever, and an LPR is never required to stay forever in the United States. They can give up their permanent resident status any time they choose to. Conversely, they risk losing their status if they don't reside in the United States. It goes both ways.
You can find a summary of the conditions imposed on LPR's traveling abroad on the USCIS website here:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=0c353a4107083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=0c353a4107083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD
The application for a reentry permit is the I-131 form:
http://www.uscis.gov/i-131
Where some people run into problems is when they've tried to get a visitors visa to the United States and were denied at the consulate for lack of strong ties to their home country, so they look at the green card as if it were an easy alternative to the visitors visa. Do you see the quandary here? The consulate denied the visitors visa because they were concerned that the alien might try to use the visitors visa to immigrate to the US, so the alien tries to circumvent this by actually becoming an immigrant! No, if you want the benefits that come with permanent resident status then you must also accept the obligations and responsibilities that come with it. If you become a US citizen then you can go anywhere you like, and stay as long as you want, without risking losing your status in the US.
A permanent resident has an obligation to pay taxes in the United States, even if their income is derived from a source outside the United States. However, US tax law provides a waiver for foreign earned income IF the taxpayer already paid taxes on that income to the foreign government, and IF the taxpayer's total income is below a certain threshold. US citizens are ALSO required to report foreign earned income on their tax returns.

It's not illegal for him to marry someone else. It's also not necessary for someone to have lawful immigration status in order to get married in the US. He just can't use that marriage as a basis to adjust status and get a green card.
Every state his it's own marriage records, and one state does not check the records of every other state before issuing a marriage license. They generally just ask each intending spouse to swear that they are not married when they sign the marriage license application. The only "documentation" that's usually required is some form of valid ID.
You seem like you're trying to hire an attorney to enforce the law. Unless you're thinking about filing a civil suit against him (I don't know what you could sue him for) then that's not what an attorney does. If you really feel compelled to spend money on trying to get him removed then I suppose you could hire a private detective to track him down, and then hand whatever information you get to ICE. However, don't be surprised if they don't jump in their bullet proof black SUV and hustle over there to arrest him. If his only violation is overstaying his visa then he's not a priority for them. They'll consider him a "target of opportunity", which means they might take him into custody if they happen to encounter him in the course of their work.

The delays aren't a matter of bureacratic bumbling, backlog, or executive discretion. They exist because of the annual numerical limits Congress placed on each immigrant visa category, in addition to the per country limits in the law. The President can't circumvent these limits with executive action.
You should also understand the President's executive action didn't change the priority for anyone. He's not granting legal status to anyone. He's allowing them to apply for deferred action, which is nothing more than a promise that DHS won't try to deport them solely for being unlawfully present. That promise is for a limited amount of time. This doesn't change their immigration status - the President doesn't have the authority to do that. It only offers temporary protection from deportation.
There are only two ways to significantly reduce the waiting time for family based legal immigrants. First, Congress could increase the numerical limits in each of the immigrant visa categories, which would make the line move faster. Second, fewer people could apply for immigrant visas, which would make the line shorter. There isn't anything the President could do (within the framework of the law) without Congress changing the law.

First, Obama has not announced any "amnesty". He doesn't have the authority to do that without Congress passing a law authorizing it. What he has announced is an expansion of the deferred action program he previously created for people brought to the US illegally as minors, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. The expansion will allow more people to qualify for DACA, as well as allowing parents of DACA eligible kids to apply for deferred action. It also expands the provisional waiver of unlawful presence so that more people are eligible to apply for the waivers while in the US.
Just to be clear, deferred action is a temporary stay of prosecution. It's not amnesty.
The terms of the program have not been finalized. Currently, it requires five years of continuous residence. If it ends up working like the DACA program then brief periods of absence before a cutoff date (it's August 15, 2012 for DACA) would not count against continuous residence. After the cutoff date then ANY absence would disqualify the alien from eligibility.
Again, if it works like the DACA program, then she would be able to apply for advance parole once she had been approved for the deferred action program. With an approved advance parole, she would be eligible to leave the US and reenter. If she hasn't already been approved for deferred action then she can't apply for advance parole. If she left the US without advance parole then she triggered the 10 year ban. She won't be allowed back into the US until she applies and is approved for a waiver of the ban and an immigrant visa based on her marriage. This will all begin with her husband filing a petition for her.
She really blew it by leaving the US.

If it actually worked then DACA program participants could also use it to overcome illegal entry and unlawful presence. That would create a loophole as big as a barn door, and there would be many thousands of DACA program participants doing this. I searched and couldn't find a single one.
What you're suggesting is that using advance parole effectively wipes the slate clean. It doesn't. As I pointed out, parole does not create a new class of admission. It allows someone to briefly leave the US and return without losing their class of admission or abandoning their AOS application. A hard rule for adjustment of status is that the applicant must be eligible to adjust both when the application is submitted AND when the application is approved. If parole changed their class of admission then every K1 who used advance parole would ultimately have to be denied AOS because they checked box "C" in section 2 of the I-485, and that application type would no longer be valid after they returned. I've heard of many people who have been denied AOS because USCIS concluded they weren't eligible for the application type they selected, but I've never heard of a K1 being denied because using AP changed their admission class.
If AP doesn't change the admission class of a K1 who complied with the terms of their visa then it also doesn't change the admission class of a K1 who didn't comply. In order to escape the conditions of the K1 they would need to leave and be admitted, not paroled, with a different admission class.

From the I-131 form instructions:
A person who has been "paroled" has not been admitted to the United States and remains an "applicant for admission" even while paroled.
The most recent "admission" to the US would still be the K1 visa.

It's not illegal for him to marry someone else. It's also not necessary for someone to have lawful immigration status in order to get married in the US. He just can't use that marriage as a basis to adjust status and get a green card.
Every state his it's own marriage records, and one state does not check the records of every other state before issuing a marriage license. They generally just ask each intending spouse to swear that they are not married when they sign the marriage license application. The only "documentation" that's usually required is some form of valid ID.
You seem like you're trying to hire an attorney to enforce the law. Unless you're thinking about filing a civil suit against him (I don't know what you could sue him for) then that's not what an attorney does. If you really feel compelled to spend money on trying to get him removed then I suppose you could hire a private detective to track him down, and then hand whatever information you get to ICE. However, don't be surprised if they don't jump in their bullet proof black SUV and hustle over there to arrest him. If his only violation is overstaying his visa then he's not a priority for them. They'll consider him a "target of opportunity", which means they might take him into custody if they happen to encounter him in the course of their work.

It's not illegal for him to marry someone else. It's also not necessary for someone to have lawful immigration status in order to get married in the US. He just can't use that marriage as a basis to adjust status and get a green card.
Every state his it's own marriage records, and one state does not check the records of every other state before issuing a marriage license. They generally just ask each intending spouse to swear that they are not married when they sign the marriage license application. The only "documentation" that's usually required is some form of valid ID.
You seem like you're trying to hire an attorney to enforce the law. Unless you're thinking about filing a civil suit against him (I don't know what you could sue him for) then that's not what an attorney does. If you really feel compelled to spend money on trying to get him removed then I suppose you could hire a private detective to track him down, and then hand whatever information you get to ICE. However, don't be surprised if they don't jump in their bullet proof black SUV and hustle over there to arrest him. If his only violation is overstaying his visa then he's not a priority for them. They'll consider him a "target of opportunity", which means they might take him into custody if they happen to encounter him in the course of their work.

If she was approved for DACA then she would be protected from being deported solely because of her lack of immigration status. However, she could still be deported if she commited any crime that would make her inadmissible to the US. The protection lasts for two years, though Obama's latest executive action will extend it to three years. She would also be able to apply to renew that protection as long as the program remains in effect. An eligible person CAN submit a DACA application while they are in removal proceedings, provided they are not currently in immigration detention, but the application won't be approved if the basis for the removal was something more serious than simple immigration status.
Not everyone who entered the US as a child is eligible to apply for DACA. They must have entered before they were 16. They must be under the age of 31 (as of June 15, 2012). They must have continuously resided in the US since June 15, 2007. They must not be a high school dropout (with some exceptions). They must not have committed a crime that would make them inadmissible to the US (i.e., deportable).
Anyway, this is all just supposition. Your original question has been answered about as well as it can be answered, given that we don't have all of the facts. I guess you'll find out if they let her back in when her vacation is over.

If she was approved for DACA then she would be protected from being deported solely because of her lack of immigration status. However, she could still be deported if she commited any crime that would make her inadmissible to the US. The protection lasts for two years, though Obama's latest executive action will extend it to three years. She would also be able to apply to renew that protection as long as the program remains in effect. An eligible person CAN submit a DACA application while they are in removal proceedings, provided they are not currently in immigration detention, but the application won't be approved if the basis for the removal was something more serious than simple immigration status.
Not everyone who entered the US as a child is eligible to apply for DACA. They must have entered before they were 16. They must be under the age of 31 (as of June 15, 2012). They must have continuously resided in the US since June 15, 2007. They must not be a high school dropout (with some exceptions). They must not have committed a crime that would make them inadmissible to the US (i.e., deportable).
Anyway, this is all just supposition. Your original question has been answered about as well as it can be answered, given that we don't have all of the facts. I guess you'll find out if they let her back in when her vacation is over.

It's not illegal for him to marry someone else. It's also not necessary for someone to have lawful immigration status in order to get married in the US. He just can't use that marriage as a basis to adjust status and get a green card.
Every state his it's own marriage records, and one state does not check the records of every other state before issuing a marriage license. They generally just ask each intending spouse to swear that they are not married when they sign the marriage license application. The only "documentation" that's usually required is some form of valid ID.
You seem like you're trying to hire an attorney to enforce the law. Unless you're thinking about filing a civil suit against him (I don't know what you could sue him for) then that's not what an attorney does. If you really feel compelled to spend money on trying to get him removed then I suppose you could hire a private detective to track him down, and then hand whatever information you get to ICE. However, don't be surprised if they don't jump in their bullet proof black SUV and hustle over there to arrest him. If his only violation is overstaying his visa then he's not a priority for them. They'll consider him a "target of opportunity", which means they might take him into custody if they happen to encounter him in the course of their work.

It's not illegal for him to marry someone else. It's also not necessary for someone to have lawful immigration status in order to get married in the US. He just can't use that marriage as a basis to adjust status and get a green card.
Every state his it's own marriage records, and one state does not check the records of every other state before issuing a marriage license. They generally just ask each intending spouse to swear that they are not married when they sign the marriage license application. The only "documentation" that's usually required is some form of valid ID.
You seem like you're trying to hire an attorney to enforce the law. Unless you're thinking about filing a civil suit against him (I don't know what you could sue him for) then that's not what an attorney does. If you really feel compelled to spend money on trying to get him removed then I suppose you could hire a private detective to track him down, and then hand whatever information you get to ICE. However, don't be surprised if they don't jump in their bullet proof black SUV and hustle over there to arrest him. If his only violation is overstaying his visa then he's not a priority for them. They'll consider him a "target of opportunity", which means they might take him into custody if they happen to encounter him in the course of their work.

It depends on what you mean by "undocumented". Everything depends on how she entered the US. If she entered with a visa and overstayed then adjustment of status is possible. If she crossed the border without being admitted by an immigration officer then adjustment of status isn't possible. When an alien is referred to as "undocumented" then the meaning is usually that they entered the US without inspection; e.g., they crossed the border illegally.
In order to adjust status an alien must have some form of immigration status to adjust from. There's also a general requirement that they have maintained that status since arriving in the US, but that requirement is waived for an immediate relative of a US citizen. Someone who crossed the border illegally never had any form of immigration status, so they have no means to adjust status. They have to leave the US and reenter with valid status first. Leaving after a year or more of unlawful presence triggers a 10 year ban on returning. That ban needs to be overcome with a waiver, which is far from a sure thing.
For a long time, many people who had entered without inspection refused to leave, even though they had become eligible to apply for an immigrant visa, because there was no way to be sure they'd get a waiver of the 10 year ban. They could leave and end up getting stuck outside the US, with no other option than to wait out the ban or try sneaking back across the border again. Obama tried to address this with the provisional waiver program. This program, which has been in effect since March of 2013, allows an alien who is an immediate relative of a US citizen, but who requires a waiver for unlawful presence, to apply for the waiver without leaving the US. They still need to leave the US in order to attend an immigrant visa interview at the US consulate in their country, but they won't incur a ban on leaving because their waiver has been pre-approved.
I presume when you say "facing deportation" you mean merely that she was subject to deportation if caught. Things become a lot more complicated if removal proceedings had already been initiated against her. If she was out of status (i.e., she entered with a visa but her period of authorized stay had expired) then she would have been able to apply for adjustment of status after marrying a US citizen, but USCIS is required to presume that the marriage is a sham because it occurred after removal proceedings had begun. Being approved for adjustment of status in those circumstances is dramatically more difficult. If she entered without inspection then marrying a US citizen would have changed nothing. Her removal proceedings would have continued as if nothing had happened.
I think the salient point here is that Obama didn't wave his magic wand and legalize a bunch of illegal aliens with a stroke of his pen. He directed DHS to create the program. They're still working on that. Once they've finished then they'll start accepting applications. An alien would have to apply and be approved under the new program before they'd be able to apply for advance parole, and they'd need advance parole before they could leave the US knowing that they would be permitted to reenter.
Before you can draw any conclusions, you need to find out what, if anything, they've done with USCIS up until now. Did her husband ever submit an I-130 immigrant visa petition for her? If so, did they ever submit an I-601A provisional waiver application? Assuming these applications were submitted and approved, and the other bureaucratic processing required for them was also completed (affidavit of support, visa application, etc.) then it's possible she could attend an immigrant visa interview at the US consulate in her home country while she's abroad. If approved, she'd reenter the US with an immigrant visa, and receive a green card shortly after entering.
Another possibility would be if she applied for and was approved for deferred action under DACA (you said she entered as a child), and applied for and was approved for advance parole before leaving the US.
Given that her husband is a relative of yours, if either of the above scenarios applied then I have a strong suspicion you would have heard something about it. It's more likely they just heard the word "amnesty" being tossed around by the news media in reference to Obama's executive action, and presumed all had been forgiven. If that's the case then they will be in for a rude shock when they try to return to the US.

First, Obama has not announced any "amnesty". He doesn't have the authority to do that without Congress passing a law authorizing it. What he has announced is an expansion of the deferred action program he previously created for people brought to the US illegally as minors, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. The expansion will allow more people to qualify for DACA, as well as allowing parents of DACA eligible kids to apply for deferred action. It also expands the provisional waiver of unlawful presence so that more people are eligible to apply for the waivers while in the US.
Just to be clear, deferred action is a temporary stay of prosecution. It's not amnesty.
The terms of the program have not been finalized. Currently, it requires five years of continuous residence. If it ends up working like the DACA program then brief periods of absence before a cutoff date (it's August 15, 2012 for DACA) would not count against continuous residence. After the cutoff date then ANY absence would disqualify the alien from eligibility.
Again, if it works like the DACA program, then she would be able to apply for advance parole once she had been approved for the deferred action program. With an approved advance parole, she would be eligible to leave the US and reenter. If she hasn't already been approved for deferred action then she can't apply for advance parole. If she left the US without advance parole then she triggered the 10 year ban. She won't be allowed back into the US until she applies and is approved for a waiver of the ban and an immigrant visa based on her marriage. This will all begin with her husband filing a petition for her.
She really blew it by leaving the US.

It depends on what you mean by "undocumented". Everything depends on how she entered the US. If she entered with a visa and overstayed then adjustment of status is possible. If she crossed the border without being admitted by an immigration officer then adjustment of status isn't possible. When an alien is referred to as "undocumented" then the meaning is usually that they entered the US without inspection; e.g., they crossed the border illegally.
In order to adjust status an alien must have some form of immigration status to adjust from. There's also a general requirement that they have maintained that status since arriving in the US, but that requirement is waived for an immediate relative of a US citizen. Someone who crossed the border illegally never had any form of immigration status, so they have no means to adjust status. They have to leave the US and reenter with valid status first. Leaving after a year or more of unlawful presence triggers a 10 year ban on returning. That ban needs to be overcome with a waiver, which is far from a sure thing.
For a long time, many people who had entered without inspection refused to leave, even though they had become eligible to apply for an immigrant visa, because there was no way to be sure they'd get a waiver of the 10 year ban. They could leave and end up getting stuck outside the US, with no other option than to wait out the ban or try sneaking back across the border again. Obama tried to address this with the provisional waiver program. This program, which has been in effect since March of 2013, allows an alien who is an immediate relative of a US citizen, but who requires a waiver for unlawful presence, to apply for the waiver without leaving the US. They still need to leave the US in order to attend an immigrant visa interview at the US consulate in their country, but they won't incur a ban on leaving because their waiver has been pre-approved.
I presume when you say "facing deportation" you mean merely that she was subject to deportation if caught. Things become a lot more complicated if removal proceedings had already been initiated against her. If she was out of status (i.e., she entered with a visa but her period of authorized stay had expired) then she would have been able to apply for adjustment of status after marrying a US citizen, but USCIS is required to presume that the marriage is a sham because it occurred after removal proceedings had begun. Being approved for adjustment of status in those circumstances is dramatically more difficult. If she entered without inspection then marrying a US citizen would have changed nothing. Her removal proceedings would have continued as if nothing had happened.
I think the salient point here is that Obama didn't wave his magic wand and legalize a bunch of illegal aliens with a stroke of his pen. He directed DHS to create the program. They're still working on that. Once they've finished then they'll start accepting applications. An alien would have to apply and be approved under the new program before they'd be able to apply for advance parole, and they'd need advance parole before they could leave the US knowing that they would be permitted to reenter.
Before you can draw any conclusions, you need to find out what, if anything, they've done with USCIS up until now. Did her husband ever submit an I-130 immigrant visa petition for her? If so, did they ever submit an I-601A provisional waiver application? Assuming these applications were submitted and approved, and the other bureaucratic processing required for them was also completed (affidavit of support, visa application, etc.) then it's possible she could attend an immigrant visa interview at the US consulate in her home country while she's abroad. If approved, she'd reenter the US with an immigrant visa, and receive a green card shortly after entering.
Another possibility would be if she applied for and was approved for deferred action under DACA (you said she entered as a child), and applied for and was approved for advance parole before leaving the US.
Given that her husband is a relative of yours, if either of the above scenarios applied then I have a strong suspicion you would have heard something about it. It's more likely they just heard the word "amnesty" being tossed around by the news media in reference to Obama's executive action, and presumed all had been forgiven. If that's the case then they will be in for a rude shock when they try to return to the US.

It depends on what you mean by "undocumented". Everything depends on how she entered the US. If she entered with a visa and overstayed then adjustment of status is possible. If she crossed the border without being admitted by an immigration officer then adjustment of status isn't possible. When an alien is referred to as "undocumented" then the meaning is usually that they entered the US without inspection; e.g., they crossed the border illegally.
In order to adjust status an alien must have some form of immigration status to adjust from. There's also a general requirement that they have maintained that status since arriving in the US, but that requirement is waived for an immediate relative of a US citizen. Someone who crossed the border illegally never had any form of immigration status, so they have no means to adjust status. They have to leave the US and reenter with valid status first. Leaving after a year or more of unlawful presence triggers a 10 year ban on returning. That ban needs to be overcome with a waiver, which is far from a sure thing.
For a long time, many people who had entered without inspection refused to leave, even though they had become eligible to apply for an immigrant visa, because there was no way to be sure they'd get a waiver of the 10 year ban. They could leave and end up getting stuck outside the US, with no other option than to wait out the ban or try sneaking back across the border again. Obama tried to address this with the provisional waiver program. This program, which has been in effect since March of 2013, allows an alien who is an immediate relative of a US citizen, but who requires a waiver for unlawful presence, to apply for the waiver without leaving the US. They still need to leave the US in order to attend an immigrant visa interview at the US consulate in their country, but they won't incur a ban on leaving because their waiver has been pre-approved.
I presume when you say "facing deportation" you mean merely that she was subject to deportation if caught. Things become a lot more complicated if removal proceedings had already been initiated against her. If she was out of status (i.e., she entered with a visa but her period of authorized stay had expired) then she would have been able to apply for adjustment of status after marrying a US citizen, but USCIS is required to presume that the marriage is a sham because it occurred after removal proceedings had begun. Being approved for adjustment of status in those circumstances is dramatically more difficult. If she entered without inspection then marrying a US citizen would have changed nothing. Her removal proceedings would have continued as if nothing had happened.
I think the salient point here is that Obama didn't wave his magic wand and legalize a bunch of illegal aliens with a stroke of his pen. He directed DHS to create the program. They're still working on that. Once they've finished then they'll start accepting applications. An alien would have to apply and be approved under the new program before they'd be able to apply for advance parole, and they'd need advance parole before they could leave the US knowing that they would be permitted to reenter.
Before you can draw any conclusions, you need to find out what, if anything, they've done with USCIS up until now. Did her husband ever submit an I-130 immigrant visa petition for her? If so, did they ever submit an I-601A provisional waiver application? Assuming these applications were submitted and approved, and the other bureaucratic processing required for them was also completed (affidavit of support, visa application, etc.) then it's possible she could attend an immigrant visa interview at the US consulate in her home country while she's abroad. If approved, she'd reenter the US with an immigrant visa, and receive a green card shortly after entering.
Another possibility would be if she applied for and was approved for deferred action under DACA (you said she entered as a child), and applied for and was approved for advance parole before leaving the US.
Given that her husband is a relative of yours, if either of the above scenarios applied then I have a strong suspicion you would have heard something about it. It's more likely they just heard the word "amnesty" being tossed around by the news media in reference to Obama's executive action, and presumed all had been forgiven. If that's the case then they will be in for a rude shock when they try to return to the US.

It depends on what you mean by "undocumented". Everything depends on how she entered the US. If she entered with a visa and overstayed then adjustment of status is possible. If she crossed the border without being admitted by an immigration officer then adjustment of status isn't possible. When an alien is referred to as "undocumented" then the meaning is usually that they entered the US without inspection; e.g., they crossed the border illegally.
In order to adjust status an alien must have some form of immigration status to adjust from. There's also a general requirement that they have maintained that status since arriving in the US, but that requirement is waived for an immediate relative of a US citizen. Someone who crossed the border illegally never had any form of immigration status, so they have no means to adjust status. They have to leave the US and reenter with valid status first. Leaving after a year or more of unlawful presence triggers a 10 year ban on returning. That ban needs to be overcome with a waiver, which is far from a sure thing.
For a long time, many people who had entered without inspection refused to leave, even though they had become eligible to apply for an immigrant visa, because there was no way to be sure they'd get a waiver of the 10 year ban. They could leave and end up getting stuck outside the US, with no other option than to wait out the ban or try sneaking back across the border again. Obama tried to address this with the provisional waiver program. This program, which has been in effect since March of 2013, allows an alien who is an immediate relative of a US citizen, but who requires a waiver for unlawful presence, to apply for the waiver without leaving the US. They still need to leave the US in order to attend an immigrant visa interview at the US consulate in their country, but they won't incur a ban on leaving because their waiver has been pre-approved.
I presume when you say "facing deportation" you mean merely that she was subject to deportation if caught. Things become a lot more complicated if removal proceedings had already been initiated against her. If she was out of status (i.e., she entered with a visa but her period of authorized stay had expired) then she would have been able to apply for adjustment of status after marrying a US citizen, but USCIS is required to presume that the marriage is a sham because it occurred after removal proceedings had begun. Being approved for adjustment of status in those circumstances is dramatically more difficult. If she entered without inspection then marrying a US citizen would have changed nothing. Her removal proceedings would have continued as if nothing had happened.
I think the salient point here is that Obama didn't wave his magic wand and legalize a bunch of illegal aliens with a stroke of his pen. He directed DHS to create the program. They're still working on that. Once they've finished then they'll start accepting applications. An alien would have to apply and be approved under the new program before they'd be able to apply for advance parole, and they'd need advance parole before they could leave the US knowing that they would be permitted to reenter.
Before you can draw any conclusions, you need to find out what, if anything, they've done with USCIS up until now. Did her husband ever submit an I-130 immigrant visa petition for her? If so, did they ever submit an I-601A provisional waiver application? Assuming these applications were submitted and approved, and the other bureaucratic processing required for them was also completed (affidavit of support, visa application, etc.) then it's possible she could attend an immigrant visa interview at the US consulate in her home country while she's abroad. If approved, she'd reenter the US with an immigrant visa, and receive a green card shortly after entering.
Another possibility would be if she applied for and was approved for deferred action under DACA (you said she entered as a child), and applied for and was approved for advance parole before leaving the US.
Given that her husband is a relative of yours, if either of the above scenarios applied then I have a strong suspicion you would have heard something about it. It's more likely they just heard the word "amnesty" being tossed around by the news media in reference to Obama's executive action, and presumed all had been forgiven. If that's the case then they will be in for a rude shock when they try to return to the US.

It depends on what you mean by "undocumented". Everything depends on how she entered the US. If she entered with a visa and overstayed then adjustment of status is possible. If she crossed the border without being admitted by an immigration officer then adjustment of status isn't possible. When an alien is referred to as "undocumented" then the meaning is usually that they entered the US without inspection; e.g., they crossed the border illegally.
In order to adjust status an alien must have some form of immigration status to adjust from. There's also a general requirement that they have maintained that status since arriving in the US, but that requirement is waived for an immediate relative of a US citizen. Someone who crossed the border illegally never had any form of immigration status, so they have no means to adjust status. They have to leave the US and reenter with valid status first. Leaving after a year or more of unlawful presence triggers a 10 year ban on returning. That ban needs to be overcome with a waiver, which is far from a sure thing.
For a long time, many people who had entered without inspection refused to leave, even though they had become eligible to apply for an immigrant visa, because there was no way to be sure they'd get a waiver of the 10 year ban. They could leave and end up getting stuck outside the US, with no other option than to wait out the ban or try sneaking back across the border again. Obama tried to address this with the provisional waiver program. This program, which has been in effect since March of 2013, allows an alien who is an immediate relative of a US citizen, but who requires a waiver for unlawful presence, to apply for the waiver without leaving the US. They still need to leave the US in order to attend an immigrant visa interview at the US consulate in their country, but they won't incur a ban on leaving because their waiver has been pre-approved.
I presume when you say "facing deportation" you mean merely that she was subject to deportation if caught. Things become a lot more complicated if removal proceedings had already been initiated against her. If she was out of status (i.e., she entered with a visa but her period of authorized stay had expired) then she would have been able to apply for adjustment of status after marrying a US citizen, but USCIS is required to presume that the marriage is a sham because it occurred after removal proceedings had begun. Being approved for adjustment of status in those circumstances is dramatically more difficult. If she entered without inspection then marrying a US citizen would have changed nothing. Her removal proceedings would have continued as if nothing had happened.
I think the salient point here is that Obama didn't wave his magic wand and legalize a bunch of illegal aliens with a stroke of his pen. He directed DHS to create the program. They're still working on that. Once they've finished then they'll start accepting applications. An alien would have to apply and be approved under the new program before they'd be able to apply for advance parole, and they'd need advance parole before they could leave the US knowing that they would be permitted to reenter.
Before you can draw any conclusions, you need to find out what, if anything, they've done with USCIS up until now. Did her husband ever submit an I-130 immigrant visa petition for her? If so, did they ever submit an I-601A provisional waiver application? Assuming these applications were submitted and approved, and the other bureaucratic processing required for them was also completed (affidavit of support, visa application, etc.) then it's possible she could attend an immigrant visa interview at the US consulate in her home country while she's abroad. If approved, she'd reenter the US with an immigrant visa, and receive a green card shortly after entering.
Another possibility would be if she applied for and was approved for deferred action under DACA (you said she entered as a child), and applied for and was approved for advance parole before leaving the US.
Given that her husband is a relative of yours, if either of the above scenarios applied then I have a strong suspicion you would have heard something about it. It's more likely they just heard the word "amnesty" being tossed around by the news media in reference to Obama's executive action, and presumed all had been forgiven. If that's the case then they will be in for a rude shock when they try to return to the US.

First, Obama has not announced any "amnesty". He doesn't have the authority to do that without Congress passing a law authorizing it. What he has announced is an expansion of the deferred action program he previously created for people brought to the US illegally as minors, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. The expansion will allow more people to qualify for DACA, as well as allowing parents of DACA eligible kids to apply for deferred action. It also expands the provisional waiver of unlawful presence so that more people are eligible to apply for the waivers while in the US.
Just to be clear, deferred action is a temporary stay of prosecution. It's not amnesty.
The terms of the program have not been finalized. Currently, it requires five years of continuous residence. If it ends up working like the DACA program then brief periods of absence before a cutoff date (it's August 15, 2012 for DACA) would not count against continuous residence. After the cutoff date then ANY absence would disqualify the alien from eligibility.
Again, if it works like the DACA program, then she would be able to apply for advance parole once she had been approved for the deferred action program. With an approved advance parole, she would be eligible to leave the US and reenter. If she hasn't already been approved for deferred action then she can't apply for advance parole. If she left the US without advance parole then she triggered the 10 year ban. She won't be allowed back into the US until she applies and is approved for a waiver of the ban and an immigrant visa based on her marriage. This will all begin with her husband filing a petition for her.
She really blew it by leaving the US.

First, Obama has not announced any "amnesty". He doesn't have the authority to do that without Congress passing a law authorizing it. What he has announced is an expansion of the deferred action program he previously created for people brought to the US illegally as minors, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. The expansion will allow more people to qualify for DACA, as well as allowing parents of DACA eligible kids to apply for deferred action. It also expands the provisional waiver of unlawful presence so that more people are eligible to apply for the waivers while in the US.
Just to be clear, deferred action is a temporary stay of prosecution. It's not amnesty.
The terms of the program have not been finalized. Currently, it requires five years of continuous residence. If it ends up working like the DACA program then brief periods of absence before a cutoff date (it's August 15, 2012 for DACA) would not count against continuous residence. After the cutoff date then ANY absence would disqualify the alien from eligibility.
Again, if it works like the DACA program, then she would be able to apply for advance parole once she had been approved for the deferred action program. With an approved advance parole, she would be eligible to leave the US and reenter. If she hasn't already been approved for deferred action then she can't apply for advance parole. If she left the US without advance parole then she triggered the 10 year ban. She won't be allowed back into the US until she applies and is approved for a waiver of the ban and an immigrant visa based on her marriage. This will all begin with her husband filing a petition for her.
She really blew it by leaving the US.

First, Obama has not announced any "amnesty". He doesn't have the authority to do that without Congress passing a law authorizing it. What he has announced is an expansion of the deferred action program he previously created for people brought to the US illegally as minors, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. The expansion will allow more people to qualify for DACA, as well as allowing parents of DACA eligible kids to apply for deferred action. It also expands the provisional waiver of unlawful presence so that more people are eligible to apply for the waivers while in the US.
Just to be clear, deferred action is a temporary stay of prosecution. It's not amnesty.
The terms of the program have not been finalized. Currently, it requires five years of continuous residence. If it ends up working like the DACA program then brief periods of absence before a cutoff date (it's August 15, 2012 for DACA) would not count against continuous residence. After the cutoff date then ANY absence would disqualify the alien from eligibility.
Again, if it works like the DACA program, then she would be able to apply for advance parole once she had been approved for the deferred action program. With an approved advance parole, she would be eligible to leave the US and reenter. If she hasn't already been approved for deferred action then she can't apply for advance parole. If she left the US without advance parole then she triggered the 10 year ban. She won't be allowed back into the US until she applies and is approved for a waiver of the ban and an immigrant visa based on her marriage. This will all begin with her husband filing a petition for her.
She really blew it by leaving the US.

First, Obama has not announced any "amnesty". He doesn't have the authority to do that without Congress passing a law authorizing it. What he has announced is an expansion of the deferred action program he previously created for people brought to the US illegally as minors, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. The expansion will allow more people to qualify for DACA, as well as allowing parents of DACA eligible kids to apply for deferred action. It also expands the provisional waiver of unlawful presence so that more people are eligible to apply for the waivers while in the US.
Just to be clear, deferred action is a temporary stay of prosecution. It's not amnesty.
The terms of the program have not been finalized. Currently, it requires five years of continuous residence. If it ends up working like the DACA program then brief periods of absence before a cutoff date (it's August 15, 2012 for DACA) would not count against continuous residence. After the cutoff date then ANY absence would disqualify the alien from eligibility.
Again, if it works like the DACA program, then she would be able to apply for advance parole once she had been approved for the deferred action program. With an approved advance parole, she would be eligible to leave the US and reenter. If she hasn't already been approved for deferred action then she can't apply for advance parole. If she left the US without advance parole then she triggered the 10 year ban. She won't be allowed back into the US until she applies and is approved for a waiver of the ban and an immigrant visa based on her marriage. This will all begin with her husband filing a petition for her.
She really blew it by leaving the US.

First, Obama has not announced any "amnesty". He doesn't have the authority to do that without Congress passing a law authorizing it. What he has announced is an expansion of the deferred action program he previously created for people brought to the US illegally as minors, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. The expansion will allow more people to qualify for DACA, as well as allowing parents of DACA eligible kids to apply for deferred action. It also expands the provisional waiver of unlawful presence so that more people are eligible to apply for the waivers while in the US.
Just to be clear, deferred action is a temporary stay of prosecution. It's not amnesty.
The terms of the program have not been finalized. Currently, it requires five years of continuous residence. If it ends up working like the DACA program then brief periods of absence before a cutoff date (it's August 15, 2012 for DACA) would not count against continuous residence. After the cutoff date then ANY absence would disqualify the alien from eligibility.
Again, if it works like the DACA program, then she would be able to apply for advance parole once she had been approved for the deferred action program. With an approved advance parole, she would be eligible to leave the US and reenter. If she hasn't already been approved for deferred action then she can't apply for advance parole. If she left the US without advance parole then she triggered the 10 year ban. She won't be allowed back into the US until she applies and is approved for a waiver of the ban and an immigrant visa based on her marriage. This will all begin with her husband filing a petition for her.
She really blew it by leaving the US.

First, Obama has not announced any "amnesty". He doesn't have the authority to do that without Congress passing a law authorizing it. What he has announced is an expansion of the deferred action program he previously created for people brought to the US illegally as minors, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. The expansion will allow more people to qualify for DACA, as well as allowing parents of DACA eligible kids to apply for deferred action. It also expands the provisional waiver of unlawful presence so that more people are eligible to apply for the waivers while in the US.
Just to be clear, deferred action is a temporary stay of prosecution. It's not amnesty.
The terms of the program have not been finalized. Currently, it requires five years of continuous residence. If it ends up working like the DACA program then brief periods of absence before a cutoff date (it's August 15, 2012 for DACA) would not count against continuous residence. After the cutoff date then ANY absence would disqualify the alien from eligibility.
Again, if it works like the DACA program, then she would be able to apply for advance parole once she had been approved for the deferred action program. With an approved advance parole, she would be eligible to leave the US and reenter. If she hasn't already been approved for deferred action then she can't apply for advance parole. If she left the US without advance parole then she triggered the 10 year ban. She won't be allowed back into the US until she applies and is approved for a waiver of the ban and an immigrant visa based on her marriage. This will all begin with her husband filing a petition for her.
She really blew it by leaving the US.

Would you consider it to be more reasonable that the taxpayers potentially be on the hook for supporting a divorced immigrant that somebody else sponsored to come to the US?
Anyone sponsoring any family based immigrant must sign an I-864. This isn't restricted to K1 petitioners.
There have been few cases where an immigrant obtained enforcement action on an I-864 without having to bring a separate civil suit against the petitioner. Few family courts are willing to consider the I-864 in divorce proceedings because the family code in most states doesn't allow for consideration of such contracts. There have been exceptions, but they're not common.
I also suggest you read Cheshire v. Cheshire. Judge Corrigan determined that Walter Cheshire was on the hook for nearly six years of support payments to his ex-wife Maria Cheshire, to the tune of over $50K. Then he adjusted the debt according to the amount Maria Cheshire earned during that time, as well as her assets, citing Wheeler v. Wheeler, which left Mr. Cheshire with a total debt of about $8.3K. That's not chicken scratch, but it's an important factor which was also found in other cases - the immigrant's income and assets are to be deducted from the payments ordered from the sponsor. 125% of the current poverty guidelines for one person is $13,612. That's not much money. A person working a full time job at minimum wage will earn substantially more than that. You won't find too many people who would be comfortable sitting on their tails and collecting $13K per year unless they're happy living in a 20ft trailer in rural Arkansas. Most immigrants who want a decent standard of living would earn more than that, and would be eligible for nothing from their sponsors.
In Sandhu v. Sandhu, the Kansas State Court of Appeals found that Emrinder Sandhu failed to show that her income was below 125% of the poverty guidelines, and they denied her appeal to have the affidavit of support enforced.
Immigrants with decent jobs cannot sue for support based on the affidavit of support, regardless of how many quarters of work credits they've accumulated through SSA. Immigrants who cannot maintain themselves at a level of at least 125% of the poverty guidelines should be supported by the sponsor in order to ensure they don't end up being supported by the taxpayers.