JimVaPhuong

Everyone has an opinion, and yours is as valid as anyone elses.
And while we're on the topic of opinions, I'll give my opinion on your opinion.
Mr. Nam can be a !@#$%. I think he fancies himself a proxy for a hard nosed CO involved in a Stokes interrogation. I sat next to my wife (she was my fiancee at the time) while he was throwing questions at her. When he got out of hand, I stopped him. I ended up arguing with him several times about his line of questioning. Of course, he could back up what he was saying with actual recent cases where the same questions were asked. My point was that if the interview degrades to the point where your fiancee or wife is being asked humiliating or degrading questions then the case is already lost - she is not going to be leaving that consulate with a visa any time soon.
I told my wife that SHE has control during the interview. They cannot keep her there against her will. If, at any time, she feels like the CO is out of line with their questions then she can refuse to answer. If the CO persists, she can walk away. There are plenty of other avenues that can be pursued. I told Mr. Nam, in no uncertain terms, that he would not ask embarrassing or humiliating questions.
Mr. Nam also made mistakes with our documents. A LOT of them. Given the amount of time you spend with him and his associates, the same thing would happen if F. Lee Bailey were your attorney. They don't know all of the details of your life, and they aren't going to learn them in a few short hours. You have to read each and every document they prepare, and make them correct any mistakes. This doesn't just apply to Mr. Nam and Marc Ellis, but to ANY attorney you hire for ANY reason.
That said, the documents were complete and well organized once I had them correct the mistakes. He knew how to organize them for presentation at the interview. He also had a good eye for selecting photos for evidence, and pointed out some things he thought were good or bad that I wouldn't have noticed. Overall, the interview prep sessions went well, aside from me occasionally interrupting as I mentioned above. My wife felt less nervous and better prepared, and that was the main objective.
I've had a fair amount of experience with lawyers for a variety of reasons (none of them criminal ). In my mind, what you hire an attorney for is primarily their experience. That's the one thing you can't acquire on your own without having been an attorney for an equal amount of time. You already have the knowledge of the facts about your case, and you can learn the applicable laws and the process. You and your attorney are like two halves of the same brain. When you work together you can be successful. If you leave it up to the attorney to do all of the work then you're probably going to fail.

Although I usually find the VJ guides to be fairly good, that particular page about the affidavit of support is misleading and inaccurate, and in some instances just plain wrong. There are two multipliers for assets, depending on the relationship between the beneficiary and the sponsor. If the sponsor is the spouse or parent of the beneficiary then the multiplier is 3X. For everyone else, the multiplier is 5X. They are based on the minimum number of years the beneficiary would need to be a permanent resident before they would be eligible for citizenship, and NOT because "the affidavit is in effect for 5 years". The I-864 affidavit is in effect until one of the conditions necessary to terminate it have been met. If none of those conditions are ever met (which is distinctly possible) then the affidavit is in effect until either the petitioner or beneficiary dies. The I-134 has no specific term because it's an unenforceable contract.
Many of the statements in that guide are based on the I-864. It glosses over the I-134 saying there are no specific income requirements on the form, but stating that you will be judged by the I-864 requirements. While this is a good general assumption to make, the truth is that the consulate has complete discretion over what to accept with the I-134. The reason is because the US government must obtain an affidavit of support for an immigrant visa applicant, and that affidavit must conform to INA 213A, which lays down very specific requirements. They are not required to obtain an affidavit of support for a non-immigrant visa (like a K1), but are required to make a discretionary judgment whether the applicant is inadmissible on the 'public charge' grounds. Most consulates do require an I-134 from the petitioner, and it's generally well known that most apply the I-864 standards, but the degree to which they apply them varies widely from one consulate to another.
The I-864 allows for household members to combine income. The I-134 doesn't provide a way to do this, and I'm not aware of any consulate that allows this with an I-134. The I-864 allows for a joint sponsor. Most consulates will permit this with an I-134, but some have specific discretionary requirements before they'll accept a joint sponsor, and some almost never accept them.
As Anh Map said, this depends very much on the consulate. They can look at the income alone and reject the affidavit as insufficient, and deny the visa on the 'public charge' determination. Finding someone else who succeeded using assets alone does not mean you will succeed. In fact, even finding someone else who went through the same consulate and succeeded using assets alone does not mean you will succeed. The consular officer is permitted to take a lot of circumstances into account when making the 'public charge' determination. The affidavit of support is only one of them. Someone else who qualified on assets alone might have other mitigating circumstances that make their case look better, like being a recent college graduate or recently starting a good paying job. With an I-134, the consular officer isn't required to consider your assets at all, though most do. I think it's generally safe to say that they prefer assets to be used to cover a temporary shortage of income, and not be a substitute when there is no income.
The best advice is to have a co-sponsor's affidavit of support and supporting documents ready, in case the consular officer requests it.

ICE doesn't have time to investigate every accusation of a US citizen being used to get a green card. They have 20 million illegal aliens to worry about. Their biggest concern are the ones who are dangerous criminals, and they've been ordered to focus on those.
USCIS will be required to consider her application for a green card based on abuse. She'll have to prove she entered the marriage in good faith, which generally means evidence of comingled finances and cohabitation. Does she have any of this evidence? She'll also need to prove the alleged abuse. Does she have anything like this? Police reports, medical reports, etc.? USCIS will not report to you on the progress of her application because you are no longer involved in it. However, they will consider the complaints you've filed when evaluating her VAWA petition, especially if you filed those complaints long before she filed her petition. You may never know if she was successful. Don't worry about it. Move on with your life. Have no further contact with her unless it's supervised. She may try to use any opportunity to collect evidence for her VAWA application, and that includes calling the cops on you. She can't pull this unless she's alone with you.
I'm sorry this happened to you. It sucks. The consulate in Saigon is known to be a difficult one, and there's a good reason for this. Most Vietnamese girls aren't scammers, but the ones who are can be really vicious.

No, you won't have to prove your foreign spouse didn't intend to immigrate when she entered. It's actually the other way around. The immigration officer would need evidence that your foreign spouse did intend to immigrate when they entered. Even then, they couldn't deny the AOS because of the preconceived intent. They would further need proof that your foreign spouse lied about their intent to an immigration officer. The two combined - evidence of preconceived intent and evidence of misrepresentation - would be sufficient to deny the AOS.
They may ask about your intentions at the interview, since an admission of guilt is as good as concrete evidence. The OP has a reasonable explanation for this. His circumstances changed after his wife arrived, so their plans changed accordingly.

Her visa expired the day she entered the US with it. The K1 visa can be used only one time to enter the US. After that, it's invalid and the I-94 determines the period of authorized stay.
Don't rely on any government agency to be familiar with US immigration laws. Even the customer service people at USCIS often don't give accurate information. If the CA DMV would have issued a California State ID then it would have had the same expiration date as the I-94. The people who screwed up were not the people who refused to issue the ID, but the people who accepted the application (and the fee) in the first place.
Her valid passport is good enough for identification purposes with TSA, and generally acceptable for domestic travel. There is a possibility that they will notice the expired I-94. In that event, they'll call ICE and/or CBP to assist in verifying her legal status. If you're at an international airport then there will be a CBP office at the airport. If you have the receipt notice for the I-485 then they'll be able to verify that she is lawfully present while her AOS petition is being processed. The odds of getting pulled out for this sort of processing and investigation are relatively small, but if it does happen then it will probably delay you. Check in and clear security early to help avoid potential problems.

It doesn't sound to me like your circumstances are going to be any different if you file for divorce after removing conditions. You'll still lose your job, have no savings, and no friends or family around to help you. The only difference is you'll have a 10 year green card that's no longer dependent on your marriage to a US citizen. Given that those are the facts, it sounds like the only factor driving your decision of when to divorce is that 10 year green card.
I'm sorry, but that smells like fraud to me. Immigration status should have no bearing on your decision to divorce. If you go to the ROC interview and pretend everything is rosy then you'll be lying to the immigration officer and also to your husband.

You're a qualifying relative living in the same household. On that basis you can file an I-864A. There are a couple of advantages to the I-864A. First, it allows the primary sponsor and household member to combine income in order to help the primary sponsor qualify - neither the primary sponsor nor the household member need to be fully qualified on their own. Normally, it would seem like this advantage is moot if the primary sponsor has no income, but there is still an additional advantage to the I-864A - the household member doesn't have to declare their own household size. However, the household member will be considered part of the primary sponsor's household.
First, you fill out the I-864A. Check box 8.c, and then check the "Son or daughter" box. Fill out the income and assets section on page 2. The primary sponsor, your mom, fills out part 2 on page 3 of the I-864A, and signs on line 14. You complete part 3 on page 3, and sign on line 16. You both have to sign the I-864A because it's a contract between the primary sponsor and the household member, unlike the I-864 which is a contract between a sponsor and the US government.
Now, your mom fills out the I-864. On line 21.a she enters "1" for the sponsored immigrant. On line 21.g she enters "1" for you - the I-864A household member. If she doesn't have any other dependents then that's it - the total in line 21.h is "3".
She should check box 22.d and enter the date since she's been unemployed. If she's never worked in the US then enter the "US residence since" date from her green card. Enter "0" for her current annual income on line 23. Enter "0" on line 24.a. In section 24.b she should list your name, relationship "son", and your income from line 10 on the I-864A. Line 24.c should be the sum of your income and hers - since hers is zero then line 24.c will be your income only. Check box 24.d.
She shouldn't check any of the boxes in section 25. She'll need to provide a letter explaining why she hasn't filed a tax return in the past three years. Not working and having no income is a valid reason not to file.
The assets section is self-explanatory, so I won't go into it.
You'll need to provide proof that you're a US citizen, proof of your family relationship with your mother, and proof that you live in the same household.

Yep. Without solid English skills the best they can usually get is a job working for other VN people. I don't mean to denigrate VN people in any way, but they tend to be not very generous to their own people unless they're family. That means long hours and short pay. In the SF Bay Area that usually means babysitting for a VN couple while they go to work, or working in a nail salon in a contract job. You need a license to work in a nail salon, but all of the manicure schools here have VN staff and conduct classes in Vietnamese, and the state even administers the test in Vietnamese for those who prefer it. It's tough to go to ESL classes when you're working 12 hours a day. The nail salon gig at least has the side benefit that you'll be interacting with English speaking people during the day, so you get a chance to practice English.
The traditional American thinking would be to work part time and go to school part time, but most of the jobs they could get without English skills aren't part time. They're more like some form of indentured slavery.
The ideal situation is if their new American family can afford to support them while they acquire English skills and then go on to learn a trade or get a degree. Even then, they'll often insist on working, even if it's a crappy job, because they feel guilty if they're not contributing. This is especially true if they're getting flak from their VN family members here about being a burden on their family when they're expected to be not only helping to support themselves, but also sending some cash to the family back home. It's a thorny issue that really needs to be discussed with them.

If your divorce is final (i.e., you have the divorce decree) by the time you have to file, then you can ask for a waiver of the joint filing requirements based on your divorce. Just tick box "d" in part 2 of the I-751. As long as you can provide the normal proof of "good faith" marriage, you should be able to remove conditions and get a 10 year green card.
Note that the divorce must be final - you can't ask for this waiver if you are separated or the divorce is still pending. If you can't get a final divorce in time, then you may be placed in removal proceedings, but you can always ask the immigration judge to postpone until you have your final divorce. These requests are almost always granted.

A friendly suggestion - spend a few moments researching your answers before posting responses that are neither helpful nor accurate. You can learn an amazing amount of information about the immigration laws and processes by researching answers to other people's questions. Besides, it's a lot of fun!

Heroin addiction is very hard to hide from someone you sleep with. She'll have injection marks, usually in places that her clothing would hide. Heroin addicts also hide drug paraphernalia, mostly hyperdermic syringes, in various places around the house. They'll put them in places you normally wouldn't casually look, like inside a vase on a shelf or behind books you rarely remove from the bookshelf. Heroin addicts are not as particular about where they toss their used packaging. Powder heroin usually comes in very small zip lock bags. (Crack and crystal meth also come in these bags). Tar heroin, more common and less expensive, is usually wrapped in a piece of plastic or aluminum foil. A three inch shred from a plastic grocery bag would be a common wrapper. You'll notice the black tar-like residue inside the wrapper. You might find these in the kitchen or bathroom trash can, though she might try to bury them under the top layer of trash.
Crack and meth are a little tougher to pin down. Look for those miniature zip lock bags in the trash with a small amount of powder residue. A crack addict will have at least one pipe, usually glass but sometimes metal, which they usually keep on them, but if she's got more than one then you might find the others. Look for copper wool scrubbing pads called "Chore Boy". They use these as a substrate to melt the crack or meth crystals while they inhale the vapors. Finding a Chore Boy pad in a place not usually used for storing cleaning supplies is a tell tale sign, especially if it's obvious that small shreds of copper wool have been torn from the pad. Finding those small shreds, especially if they're dark and burnt, is a dead giveaway.
Take a little investigative tour around your home when she's not around. If she's an addict you should have no trouble finding some evidence. Save whatever you find and confront her with it. She'll deny it, of course, but you must confront her so that she'll know that you know.
I've lived with addicts before. I was even married to one at one time. They're sneaky in that they won't leave the evidence out in the open, but they don't waste too much time trying to hide it either. It's usually not too difficult to find with a little effort.
Just a bit of personal advice - even if she wanted to reform herself, the long term reform rate for addicts is extremely low - well under 5%. To make matters worse, when they start slipping then they grab onto anyone around them and take them down with them. What I mean by this is she'll steal your rent money or pawn your most precious belongings in order to buy drugs. She'll take out a cash advance on that credit card. If she can't get a cash advance then she'll use the card to buy something new, and then immediately flip it at a pawn shop for half the price. You take a substantial risk if you choose to try to help them. It's better to cut ties and get away. Don't try to help them if they fall on severely hard times. Sometimes that's the only wake-up call that will save their life. Sometimes it won't. I saw a 26 year old man come out of a six month resident program. He was happy, healthy, strong, and sober. He fell off the wagon two days later, and then deteriorated rapidly. Within a week he was homeless. Within two weeks he was dead from a multiple drug overdose.
Just get out. For your own good.

I have to play devil's advocate here...
The above advice presumes that the accusations of abuse contained in the VAWA application are genuine, and not simply an attempt to gain lawful status when the spouse isn't being cooperative with adjustment of status. There are no hard statistics, but there are enough horror stories to confirm that the number of fraudulent VAWA applications is substantial. If this were one of those cases then it would be completely understandable why the USC spouse would not want to participate in any program of counseling or therapy because it would amount to an admission of abuse they never committed. In that event, your advice would constitute a recommendation that the OP continue with a fraudulent VAWA claim because her non-abusive spouse refuses to admit that he's abusive.
This is why I rarely post in VAWA topics other than maybe outlining the procedure. This particular area of immigration involves more deceit than any other, and it's almost impossible to tell if the anonymous person behind the screen name is being completely honest.
To the OP - I apologize if any of the above is offensive to you. I'm not accusing you of lying or engaging in fraud. I'm simply saying that you're swimming in shark infested waters, and it's difficult to tell through the internet if you're a dolphin or a shark. My personal philosophy in these cases is to focus on the procedural aspects and avoid any relationship advice since I don't want to find out afterward that I've helped a shark.

Divorce doesn't end the contract. However, while the I-864 says that the immigrant has the right to sue the sponsor to seek enforcement of the contract, it doesn't say that the immigrant cannot waive that right. A pre-nup could effectively end the immigrant's right to seek enforcement of the I-864 without affecting the government's right to seek reimbursement, but enforcement action by the government is rare.
The most well known action by a government agency to enforce the I-864 was when the Connecticut Department of Social Services tried to collect reimbursement from approximately 300 sponsors in 2007. The state's Attorney General stopped that action. A 2004 lawsuit against the L.A. County Department of Health Services sought to force the department to enforce I-864's against an unspecified number of sponsors, but the judge dismissed the lawsuit because the plaintiffs - an organization of taxpayers called the Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement - didn't have standing to bring the suit to court.
Government agencies are reluctant to enforce the I-864 because sponsors are often low income or immigrants themselves, and the agencies usually want to avoid the adverse publicity that would come with enforcement.

Yep. Without solid English skills the best they can usually get is a job working for other VN people. I don't mean to denigrate VN people in any way, but they tend to be not very generous to their own people unless they're family. That means long hours and short pay. In the SF Bay Area that usually means babysitting for a VN couple while they go to work, or working in a nail salon in a contract job. You need a license to work in a nail salon, but all of the manicure schools here have VN staff and conduct classes in Vietnamese, and the state even administers the test in Vietnamese for those who prefer it. It's tough to go to ESL classes when you're working 12 hours a day. The nail salon gig at least has the side benefit that you'll be interacting with English speaking people during the day, so you get a chance to practice English.
The traditional American thinking would be to work part time and go to school part time, but most of the jobs they could get without English skills aren't part time. They're more like some form of indentured slavery.
The ideal situation is if their new American family can afford to support them while they acquire English skills and then go on to learn a trade or get a degree. Even then, they'll often insist on working, even if it's a crappy job, because they feel guilty if they're not contributing. This is especially true if they're getting flak from their VN family members here about being a burden on their family when they're expected to be not only helping to support themselves, but also sending some cash to the family back home. It's a thorny issue that really needs to be discussed with them.

There are lots of American women who are treated as badly by their American husbands. If the fact that you are a foreigner had anything to do with it then you probably wouldn't have a green card. Your husband is a jerk because he's not a good person. It's not because he's American, and it's not because you're a foreigner. Divorce him and move on with your life. If you have sufficient evidence that you entered the marriage in good faith then you can remove conditions and get a 10 year green card on your own.

My relatives never had any doubts that Phuong and I were the "real deal". In fact, my sister and her husband even went to Vietnam to represent my family for the traditional engagement ceremony. My mom, who lives with me, discretely encouraged me to pursue the relationship for more than a year, and she's gotten along famously with Phuong and her kids since the day they arrived more than 3 years ago. When Phuong comes home from work she usually goes to my mom's room to visit and say hi before coming to say hi to me.
My two best friends were a different story. Both warned me, loudly and repeatedly, to be careful because I was "probably being used for a green card". Interestingly, those friends are both immigrants - one from eastern Europe and the other from South America.

The conviction would have also prevented your Australian example from obtaining US citizenship. The "good moral character" requirement has been part of US naturalization law since 1790, though if he would have applied for citizenship before 1996 he wouldn't have been automatically deported. He would only have been denied naturalization. As of now, any contact with authorities can result in a permanent resident being deported if they have ever committed or admit to having committed a deportable offense, which includes most felonies.
FWIW, US immigration law does not consider deportation to be a "penalty". Deportation is considered corrective active. The problem: the person being deported shouldn't be here. The correction action: send them back to the country where they came from. If a person was born in Australia then US law does not and should not consider returning there to be a "penalty". There are exceptions, such as when the alien's home country is embroiled in war, or when the alien would face persecution if they returned, or if their US citizen relatives would face severe hardship if they were forced to leave. Those people might be eligible for asylum or cancelation of removal. Otherwise, the US generally doesn't roll out the welcome mat for criminals, or continue to accomodate those who become criminals in the US.
Additionally, a permanent resident convicted of a crime in Australia is also subject to deportation. If the minister uses section 501 of the Migration Act then the alien doesn't even have a right to appeal the decision. They are detained until removed.

Wow! I've got to check in here more often! This is really news to me! This is a really radical life change, and I'm curious what prompted it. Phuong and I always talked about maintaining two residences after I retire, one in the US and one in Vietnam, but neither of us has ever really suggested permanently living there.

Yes, but it's not usually insufferably hot. Being further north and closer to the ocean, I find Hue is usually a lot more comfortable than Saigon. Walking out of Tan Son Nhat airport any time of year is kind of like walking into a blast furnace. It makes me look forward to getting on that domestic flight and getting up to Hue. The city itself is a little gritty, but it has it's own charm, especially around the Citadel. What I really like is the surrounding countryside.

D.Q. has been trolling this board for several years. It's ironic he would claim credit for predicting Clay's situation when practically every comment he has ever made on this board has involved a similar negative stereotyping of someone's Vietnamese fiancee or spouse. If nothing else, he is proof that if you always play the same number on the roulette board you'll eventually win. D.Q.'s posts are routinely deleted because his comments are rarely constructive or helpful, and are usually derogatory about the poster and/or the poster's Vietnamese S.O. To him, every dog is a wolf, so nobody listens when he cries wolf.
(Moderator's comments added: Dau Que is a banned former member of Visa Journey who habitually starts new accounts for the sole purpose of trolling this site. All duplicate accounts, once identified, are banned. As Jim states, please do not respond to any comments made by a new member that 'aim for the throat' about Vietnamese fiances or spouses, and report them to the Moderation Team using the Report button on the post. Thank you. )

I'm sorry, but this implies that her deceit should be forgiven because she comes from a poor country. This is wrong. This sort of thing certainly happens far too often in Vietnam, but it's the exception rather than the rule. Most women in Vietnam would not engage in fraud on this level in order to snare a visa to a first world country, just as most women wouldn't prostitute themselves regardless of how poor they were. Broadly speaking, they are decent and moral people, though there are bad apples, to be sure.
It's true that Vietnam is a poor country, but it's not the sort of miserable poverty you see on Child Fund commercials. Many houses may consist of little more than a concrete bunker with a tin roof, a wooden box for a family altar, and a woven bamboo mat for a bed. But it's rare to find people starving. Most people, even the most poor, wear relatively decent clean clothing. Nearly everyone has a cell phone. Most homes have at least one gas powered scooter. Families take responsibility for each other, and there is a strong sense of charity. Many people are poor, but most are relatively happy in spite of it. When someone is desperate to escape Vietnam it's usually because they have aspirations of achieving wealth, and not because they're strangling under the weight of poverty.
Can we judge her behavior in spite of the fact that we haven't experienced life in her country? Yes, absolutely. Her own people would judge her harshly.

I remember Clay's case from years ago. It's been a tragedy from the start:
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/329862-child-died-in-vietnam-before-dna-sample/
He even started a publicity campaign to try to provoke changes at the consulate in HCMC:
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/337258-vj-member-about-childs-death-in-vietnam/
Unfortunately, this appears to be one of those cases where the CO was correct when they denied the K1 the first time.
Clay, I'm extremely sorry for your situation. Your life has been a continuous stream of disappointment and tragedy. You fought very hard for this woman, and now it's clear she was stabbing you in the back from the beginning. You MUST get out of that apartment, get a good lawyer, and file for a divorce as soon as you can. Don't ever be alone around her again. Do this before she suspects anything. Otherwise, she must know that VAWA is her only other option after entering the US with a K1. If you don't protect yourself then you could end up in jail, possibly even with a criminal record for spousal abuse.

Heroin addiction is very hard to hide from someone you sleep with. She'll have injection marks, usually in places that her clothing would hide. Heroin addicts also hide drug paraphernalia, mostly hyperdermic syringes, in various places around the house. They'll put them in places you normally wouldn't casually look, like inside a vase on a shelf or behind books you rarely remove from the bookshelf. Heroin addicts are not as particular about where they toss their used packaging. Powder heroin usually comes in very small zip lock bags. (Crack and crystal meth also come in these bags). Tar heroin, more common and less expensive, is usually wrapped in a piece of plastic or aluminum foil. A three inch shred from a plastic grocery bag would be a common wrapper. You'll notice the black tar-like residue inside the wrapper. You might find these in the kitchen or bathroom trash can, though she might try to bury them under the top layer of trash.
Crack and meth are a little tougher to pin down. Look for those miniature zip lock bags in the trash with a small amount of powder residue. A crack addict will have at least one pipe, usually glass but sometimes metal, which they usually keep on them, but if she's got more than one then you might find the others. Look for copper wool scrubbing pads called "Chore Boy". They use these as a substrate to melt the crack or meth crystals while they inhale the vapors. Finding a Chore Boy pad in a place not usually used for storing cleaning supplies is a tell tale sign, especially if it's obvious that small shreds of copper wool have been torn from the pad. Finding those small shreds, especially if they're dark and burnt, is a dead giveaway.
Take a little investigative tour around your home when she's not around. If she's an addict you should have no trouble finding some evidence. Save whatever you find and confront her with it. She'll deny it, of course, but you must confront her so that she'll know that you know.
I've lived with addicts before. I was even married to one at one time. They're sneaky in that they won't leave the evidence out in the open, but they don't waste too much time trying to hide it either. It's usually not too difficult to find with a little effort.
Just a bit of personal advice - even if she wanted to reform herself, the long term reform rate for addicts is extremely low - well under 5%. To make matters worse, when they start slipping then they grab onto anyone around them and take them down with them. What I mean by this is she'll steal your rent money or pawn your most precious belongings in order to buy drugs. She'll take out a cash advance on that credit card. If she can't get a cash advance then she'll use the card to buy something new, and then immediately flip it at a pawn shop for half the price. You take a substantial risk if you choose to try to help them. It's better to cut ties and get away. Don't try to help them if they fall on severely hard times. Sometimes that's the only wake-up call that will save their life. Sometimes it won't. I saw a 26 year old man come out of a six month resident program. He was happy, healthy, strong, and sober. He fell off the wagon two days later, and then deteriorated rapidly. Within a week he was homeless. Within two weeks he was dead from a multiple drug overdose.
Just get out. For your own good.

You probably read that time spent waiting for a decision on the AOS will be counted as unlawful presence if the AOS application is denied because it wasn't filed in a timely manner (i.e., while the alien still had lawful status), or if the filing was frivolous, or if the alien had been unlawfully employed. This is true, but only if one of these reasons is the basis for denying the AOS. This won't happen to someone who is applying for AOS as the spouse of a US citizen because of INA 245(c )(2). Under that section of the law, someone applying for AOS as the spouse of a US citizen isn't required to have maintained their lawful non-immigrant status, nor are they probited from adjustment because of unlawful employment. In other words, their AOS can't be denied for those reasons, so the AOS application time won't be added to their unlawful presence. The unlawful presence clock stops when the AOS application is accepted. The clock disappears if the AOS is approved. The clock resumes running if the AOS is denied.

D.Q. has been trolling this board for several years. It's ironic he would claim credit for predicting Clay's situation when practically every comment he has ever made on this board has involved a similar negative stereotyping of someone's Vietnamese fiancee or spouse. If nothing else, he is proof that if you always play the same number on the roulette board you'll eventually win. D.Q.'s posts are routinely deleted because his comments are rarely constructive or helpful, and are usually derogatory about the poster and/or the poster's Vietnamese S.O. To him, every dog is a wolf, so nobody listens when he cries wolf.
(Moderator's comments added: Dau Que is a banned former member of Visa Journey who habitually starts new accounts for the sole purpose of trolling this site. All duplicate accounts, once identified, are banned. As Jim states, please do not respond to any comments made by a new member that 'aim for the throat' about Vietnamese fiances or spouses, and report them to the Moderation Team using the Report button on the post. Thank you. )

On further study, the owner of the site is Gerry Gannon. He's a law school graduate, but he's not a member of the Bar Association nor the AILA, and he's got some choice comments about both groups which he calls "self serving" (aren't all trade associations self serving?). He got started dealing with immigration law when acting as a translator for Vietnamese resettlement programs, which may explain where he go his 41% denial figures. Aside from some nebulous claims, his site is pretty interesting reading.
He does take one position that I find particularly interesting - he says it doesn't matter what the policies, procedures, or practices of a government agency are - it only matters what the law says. He goes on to say that government agencies routinely implement policies that are in direct conflict with the law (like we didn't already know that), and says that such policies constitute a crime (I wouldn't go that far). He's pragmatic about this, and realizes that you ultimately have to deal with consular officers in the foreign country (he calls them "visa adjudicators"), so you do what you have to do in order to get the visa. But the premise can be a dangerous one for a reader who takes his position to heart without also applying the pragmatic side of his approach. It's all well and good to say that a particular question on a particular form technically does not need to be answered because there is no requirement for it in law. However, if not answering the question results in a denied visa then you haven't done yourself any favors by butting heads with the consulate. In all fairness, he doesn't advocate that anyone do this. He's mostly just ranting about the inconsistency between the actual codified law and the way it's implemented by government agencies. He's welcome to tilt at windmills, but I think most people are more concerned about getting that one particular visa for their fiancee or spouse.
I do think that his position against forums and immigration attorneys is a bit pompous. It almost comes across as implying that he alone is wise and experienced enough to do this process right, and that average people (like the members of this forum) aren't capable of understanding the law, following instructions, and learning from the collective experience of others. He also makes the blatantly false accusation that forums are "support groups" where people don't share their bad experiences, and therefore have the benefit of helping others learn from them. I've found the opposite to be true of VJ - many people end up here precisely because things have gone wrong and they're looking for assistance and advice.
To his credit, he offers a money back guarantee if your SO doesn't get a visa. Most attorneys only guarantee you'll get the petition approved.

I remember Clay's case from years ago. It's been a tragedy from the start:
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/329862-child-died-in-vietnam-before-dna-sample/
He even started a publicity campaign to try to provoke changes at the consulate in HCMC:
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/337258-vj-member-about-childs-death-in-vietnam/
Unfortunately, this appears to be one of those cases where the CO was correct when they denied the K1 the first time.
Clay, I'm extremely sorry for your situation. Your life has been a continuous stream of disappointment and tragedy. You fought very hard for this woman, and now it's clear she was stabbing you in the back from the beginning. You MUST get out of that apartment, get a good lawyer, and file for a divorce as soon as you can. Don't ever be alone around her again. Do this before she suspects anything. Otherwise, she must know that VAWA is her only other option after entering the US with a K1. If you don't protect yourself then you could end up in jail, possibly even with a criminal record for spousal abuse.