Brother Hesekiel

If you are a human being as science knows it, you are unable to answer the questions truthfully before April 1. Plain and simple. Unable, as the questions are phrased very specific (did live, not assume to live) and contain a specific date (4-1-2010).
You can get hit by a bus tomorrow, your husband can have a stroke or heart attack, and something tragic can happen to your son or daughter as well. The fact that people even assume it's easy to predict what happens to the about 300,000,000 US residents within the next 2 weeks is proposterous and proof that people don't take the Census seriously. Hence, there you have it: a huge waste of taxpayers' money.

So you killed a few bad guys, did some minor drive-by shootings, perhaps a little robbery or an assault, but never got caught. And now you wonder if you should mention these crimes on your N-400 application and if you did, if that would get you in trouble?
Let think about that; I'll get back to you with an answer tomorrow.

If you are a human being as science knows it, you are unable to answer the questions truthfully before April 1. Plain and simple. Unable, as the questions are phrased very specific (did live, not assume to live) and contain a specific date (4-1-2010).
You can get hit by a bus tomorrow, your husband can have a stroke or heart attack, and something tragic can happen to your son or daughter as well. The fact that people even assume it's easy to predict what happens to the about 300,000,000 US residents within the next 2 weeks is proposterous and proof that people don't take the Census seriously. Hence, there you have it: a huge waste of taxpayers' money.

Your post makes no sense. Why don't you post it in French in the Canada section . . .

Now, that I find interesting, and that's as politely as I can phrase it.
The form we received asks specifically how many people lived in the household as of April 1, 2010. If you, Kathryn, or anybody for that matter, mailed in their form with a number assigned to that question, I wonder how you were able to establish an event that has not happened yet, as it is assigned to a date of the future.
Either one takes the Census seriously, which would imply a simple inability to mail it back before April 1, 2010, or one thinks it's a bunch of BS and a waste of taxpayers' money, which would imply one could fill in anything, claim to be an Pacific Islander of some form, and so on. Who really cares.
What is impossible, however, is to have mailed it back already, and to take it seriously, as it is impossible to have answered the questions truthfully and have mailed it back at this point in time.
Seriously.

Now, that I find interesting, and that's as politely as I can phrase it.
The form we received asks specifically how many people lived in the household as of April 1, 2010. If you, Kathryn, or anybody for that matter, mailed in their form with a number assigned to that question, I wonder how you were able to establish an event that has not happened yet, as it is assigned to a date of the future.
Either one takes the Census seriously, which would imply a simple inability to mail it back before April 1, 2010, or one thinks it's a bunch of BS and a waste of taxpayers' money, which would imply one could fill in anything, claim to be an Pacific Islander of some form, and so on. Who really cares.
What is impossible, however, is to have mailed it back already, and to take it seriously, as it is impossible to have answered the questions truthfully and have mailed it back at this point in time.
Seriously.

Now, that I find interesting, and that's as politely as I can phrase it.
The form we received asks specifically how many people lived in the household as of April 1, 2010. If you, Kathryn, or anybody for that matter, mailed in their form with a number assigned to that question, I wonder how you were able to establish an event that has not happened yet, as it is assigned to a date of the future.
Either one takes the Census seriously, which would imply a simple inability to mail it back before April 1, 2010, or one thinks it's a bunch of BS and a waste of taxpayers' money, which would imply one could fill in anything, claim to be an Pacific Islander of some form, and so on. Who really cares.
What is impossible, however, is to have mailed it back already, and to take it seriously, as it is impossible to have answered the questions truthfully and have mailed it back at this point in time.
Seriously.

You want to check the Governments' records? Cool. Could you do me a favor and check what's in the hangars at Area 51? No President has yet been forthcoming with that, and I'd really would like to know.
Thanks a bunch in advance!
Bob

Your question comes up quite frequently, and it always causes people to disagree with each other on how to "interpret" immigration law in regard to "intent" (to visit, marry, and then adjust status to permanent resident).
Yet, your case is rather simple. Yes, you can marry your fiance in the US, have a fantastic honeymoon, afterward should file the CR-1 paperwork for your then wife. For the interview she has to go back to Canada, but there's no law that prevents her to visit you while waiting for your petition to be administered. Luckily for you, Canada is just a jump away; if you were to live in Australia, the whole process would take a whole different dimension.
As it has been stated in one of the previous responses, it is ultimately up to the CBP officer to allow your then wife to visit you while her immigration case is being processed, but since by that time you have initiated the immigration process in the correct and formal manner, I don't see why she should have any problems doing so.

I've been guilty of some comments that have come over not exactly the way I intended, so let me try to do this a bit more gentle.
You did not provide us with all the important information, so I'm just guessing that you married a US citizen in the United States while visiting here with a B2 or perhaps a student visa. When applying for adjustment of status (AOS), the Immigration Officer (I.O.) has one primary job: finding out if the marriage is legit, meaning if it was entered out of "love" and affection, not because the foreigner would greatly benefit from such marriage by getting a Green Card.
I've walked in your shoes, so I know the walk.
When trying to establish whether or not the marriage is legit, the I.O. has to use common sense and common "standards." What I mean with that is that she would have looked at every angle of your relationship. How you met, how long you knew each other, what you do for a living, whether or not you appear to be compatible, and how you got married. To tell you the truth, it is very unusual for a married couple not to have a single photo of their wedding. Even small weddings have in most cases at least a friend of family member ("best man") present, and getting married is one of the most exciting moments in most people's lives.
I don't know how the I.O. came to the conclusion that your relationship isn't real, but she did. By the way, in your post you didn't mention with a single word how your wife would be affected by you having to leave the country. No offense, but I find that strange as well.
In any case, if somebody is married "for love" and the I.O. tells them that she believes that their marriage is fraudulent and asks them to sign a statement to that effect (signing that the I.O. is correct), I doubt that many people would do that. Had that happened to me I would have said: "you are wrong; I am not signing this statement. I would like to speak with a supervisor, please."
But you didn't. You signed your deportation papers, for reasons only you know. But at this point of your journey, I doubt that there's anything you can do. Even if you were to hire a competent immigration attorney, you'd only have a slim chance that an immigration judge would wipe your signed statement clear as if you never signed it, then overrule the decision of the I.O., and finally approve your AOS case.

If someone enters the US with a K-1, marries the petitioning US citizen within the allotted time frame of 90 days, that person is not even required to file for AOS. Crazy, isn't it?
While the now married spouse of the USC will be unable to apply for a driver license, work permit, or even SS number, he or she is still legal in the country, even with an expired I-94.
Of course, John, one would be crazy to stretch the limits of this immigration loophole without the pressure of a true emergency, but for your personal purposes it should be comforting to know that even if your wife gets stopped by immigration officials a year or two from now, nothing bad is going to happen to her.

You want to check the Governments' records? Cool. Could you do me a favor and check what's in the hangars at Area 51? No President has yet been forthcoming with that, and I'd really would like to know.
Thanks a bunch in advance!
Bob

I've been guilty of some comments that have come over not exactly the way I intended, so let me try to do this a bit more gentle.
You did not provide us with all the important information, so I'm just guessing that you married a US citizen in the United States while visiting here with a B2 or perhaps a student visa. When applying for adjustment of status (AOS), the Immigration Officer (I.O.) has one primary job: finding out if the marriage is legit, meaning if it was entered out of "love" and affection, not because the foreigner would greatly benefit from such marriage by getting a Green Card.
I've walked in your shoes, so I know the walk.
When trying to establish whether or not the marriage is legit, the I.O. has to use common sense and common "standards." What I mean with that is that she would have looked at every angle of your relationship. How you met, how long you knew each other, what you do for a living, whether or not you appear to be compatible, and how you got married. To tell you the truth, it is very unusual for a married couple not to have a single photo of their wedding. Even small weddings have in most cases at least a friend of family member ("best man") present, and getting married is one of the most exciting moments in most people's lives.
I don't know how the I.O. came to the conclusion that your relationship isn't real, but she did. By the way, in your post you didn't mention with a single word how your wife would be affected by you having to leave the country. No offense, but I find that strange as well.
In any case, if somebody is married "for love" and the I.O. tells them that she believes that their marriage is fraudulent and asks them to sign a statement to that effect (signing that the I.O. is correct), I doubt that many people would do that. Had that happened to me I would have said: "you are wrong; I am not signing this statement. I would like to speak with a supervisor, please."
But you didn't. You signed your deportation papers, for reasons only you know. But at this point of your journey, I doubt that there's anything you can do. Even if you were to hire a competent immigration attorney, you'd only have a slim chance that an immigration judge would wipe your signed statement clear as if you never signed it, then overrule the decision of the I.O., and finally approve your AOS case.

And aside from that, there's reality. As in real life.
For example, for ridiculous reasons of being politically correct, one is not allowed to specify a certain race, or age, or gender, when wanting to rent out a house or apartment, or hiring for a job.
If I'm a landlord, more specific an old Lady in her 70s, wanting to rent out the small guesthouse in the back of my property to a single girl between the ages of 35 to 50, and I want her to be as white as I am, I can't phrase that, as it would violate the law. So my add reads: "guest house for rent to one person only." The consequence is that many people of all ages, genders, and ethnic backgrounds waste their time leaving work early and coming by and applying for said house, but I'm renting it out to whomever I want to rent it out: the single white girl between age 35 and 50.
Or, let's say I operate a Chinese laundry in Chinatown, and God dammed, I want a Chinese girl to help me, not a Mexican guy. But I can't say "Chinese girl" wanted. So if the Mexican guy comes, I don't hire him, I hire the Chinese girl, and the Mexican guy, and the white guy, and the black guy, and girl, all wasted their time, thanks to that stupid law. It's not about discrimination, it's about PREFERENCE! If the Chinese guy prefers a Chinese girl for the job, that doesn't mean he hates other races, or guys, it means just what it means: he prefers a Chinese girl of a certain age for his Chinese clients. His business, his clients, his money, his decision.
A final example of many: if I have a law firm in a Hispanic neighborhood, with mostly Mexican or Puerto Rican or whatever population, I want to hire a lawyer or paralegal of exactly that background. But I can't do so, by law. Hence I have to advertise that position and many people waste their time applying, as I am hiring exactly whom I intend to hire: the Mexican or Puerto Rican lawyer or paralegal.
Some with lending. I don't know how Fanny May, after almost being killed by the recent financial crisis, handles it, but if I'm a lender and I don't want to lend my money to anybody but US citizens of a certain risk group, or profession, or whatever, I do just that. That doesn't mean that I tell 'em my criteria; it just means that I don't lend them money because I do not want to assume the financial risk. End of story.

You know what they say: do what you love and you don't have to work a single day of your life.
I have a B.A. in business and an advanced degree in philosophy, yet I turned my hobby into my business before I even entered the US. Today, about 23 years later, I work about 60 hours a week, make good money, yet feel fine when going to work as I'm not only the boss, but also enjoy what I do, every single day.
That's what you should do. Work hard, save money, then pursue your dream in life. If you do what you love and love what you do, it's a wonderful life.
Same with the weather. I live where people from all over the world come to take a vacation. My house is 5 minutes away from the beach, I can ride a bike to work when I feel like it, as we dream weather with about 330 days of sunshine every year. Hence, every day is like a vacation day for me.
You are in charge of your life. Move to where you want to live and do what you want to do.

According to what you stated, your wife will have NO PROBLEMS filing successfully for ROC without you. The documentation you have at hand is more than sufficient.
She can file 90 days before the 2nd anniversary of her GC, but her petition cannot be completed without a divorce decree in hand. If she submits the I-751 without the divorce decree, she'll receive a RFE. That's not a bad thing per se, as it allows her to buy time. If you get divorced earlier than that, she can file immediately. What the means is that she could file today, if you were divorced already. I still would wait until the 90-day window opens, but don't want to get into the reasons for this as it is non-relevant to your case right now.
You won't be present at any interview if your wife files without you. Therefore, I suggest you get a divorce ASAP; that way you can help her the most. If you stay married together or live apart, and file jointly, you are committing visa fraud, both of you.
Tell your wife she has nothing to worry about you. The 2-year GC has been introduced in order to sort out fraudsters. Since the marriage has been entered in good faith, and you can prove that you lived as a happily married together under one roof, she has nothing to worry about.
Disclaimer: the whole thing is a bit more complex, so I only wrote what I deemed makes sense given your specific case.

Again,
this is not the whole story. Anybody seeking financial aid or registering for college has to fill out an application. To the best of my knowledge, part of any college application is stating one's status, either as a citizen, LPR, or formal non-resident student. I absolutely doubt that an illegal immigrant can be eligible for in-state tuition unless he or she makes a false claim of US citizenship. And what the encompasses we all know.
Still, I agree with the O.P. on many levels. Illegal immigration is so very easy to get under control, it's ridiculous. Assume I were the President of the United States, and I wanted -- and that's the keyword here -- to bring illegal immigration to a stop, I would require proof of legal presence at any given time. Kid enrolling for Kindergarten? Show it. Grade school? Show it. Junior High? Show it. High School? Show it. Field trip? Show it. Driver license? Show it. Registering a car? Show it. Renting an apartment? Show it. Landlords who do not comply will be prosecuted for harboring a criminal. Since we at it: being illegal in this country would be a crime (at this time it's not). Want a cell phone? Show it. Water running? Show it. Electricity? Show it. Gas? Show it. Pulled over by a cop. Show it. Stopped while jaywalking? Show it. Court date? Show it!
I would require every peace officer to check status of a detained person. Can't show it? Go to jail until we know who they're dealing with. Book an inland flight? Show it. Greyhound bus? Show it. Train? Show it.
Somebody crossing the border illegally? Go to jail, get 10 with a whip, a tattoo with the arrest number on the wrist. I would get illegal immigration so fast under control, you won't believe it.
Why isn't that happening? For two reasons. One, politicians, with very few exceptions, are mainly concerned about votes and being re-elected. Secondly, they do not want to get rid of the illegal immigrants, as they need them.
It's really this simple.

Again,
this is not the whole story. Anybody seeking financial aid or registering for college has to fill out an application. To the best of my knowledge, part of any college application is stating one's status, either as a citizen, LPR, or formal non-resident student. I absolutely doubt that an illegal immigrant can be eligible for in-state tuition unless he or she makes a false claim of US citizenship. And what the encompasses we all know.
Still, I agree with the O.P. on many levels. Illegal immigration is so very easy to get under control, it's ridiculous. Assume I were the President of the United States, and I wanted -- and that's the keyword here -- to bring illegal immigration to a stop, I would require proof of legal presence at any given time. Kid enrolling for Kindergarten? Show it. Grade school? Show it. Junior High? Show it. High School? Show it. Field trip? Show it. Driver license? Show it. Registering a car? Show it. Renting an apartment? Show it. Landlords who do not comply will be prosecuted for harboring a criminal. Since we at it: being illegal in this country would be a crime (at this time it's not). Want a cell phone? Show it. Water running? Show it. Electricity? Show it. Gas? Show it. Pulled over by a cop. Show it. Stopped while jaywalking? Show it. Court date? Show it!
I would require every peace officer to check status of a detained person. Can't show it? Go to jail until we know who they're dealing with. Book an inland flight? Show it. Greyhound bus? Show it. Train? Show it.
Somebody crossing the border illegally? Go to jail, get 10 with a whip, a tattoo with the arrest number on the wrist. I would get illegal immigration so fast under control, you won't believe it.
Why isn't that happening? For two reasons. One, politicians, with very few exceptions, are mainly concerned about votes and being re-elected. Secondly, they do not want to get rid of the illegal immigrants, as they need them.
It's really this simple.

The sky is not blue.
Your eyes may perceive it as being blue, for a dog' it's greenish gray. Can we blame the sky for this, or should we accept the fact that not everything is exactly the way we are convinced it is?
Thank you for the wonderful example of human ignorance. No offense intended.

Still valid, yes, but less than 60 days remaining. Thus, she'll will have to wait until she gets the Green Card. Always better for an immigrant not to change their name, as it's not required in the United States.