Indy90

Unless I am reading this wrong, the OPs case is a bit different (or quite a bit), however. The OP did in fact live in the US and returned to her home country because of an emergency, unlike this example. She also clearly seems to still have an intention to immigration, unlike your uncle.

No assumptions made on my part, but rather from a few posters (not the vast majority) that assume that she automatically does not qualify for anything because of the false claim. I think that it is better to provide her with a hypothetical example of how a lawyer could potentially be able to review her circumstances and hopefully find a remedy rather than assuming that there is no hope. Obviously, she faces an uphill battle and very well might not have any forms of relief available to her, but I want to provide every bit of encouragement that I can to see an attorney.
Yep, point 9, part A makes it pretty clear. It seems pretty harsh, but there are a lot of issues that could arise with people making false claims (voter fraud, for example). http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-601instr.pdf

Then we should only deal with the facts as they are presented to us. You just made a whole bunch of assumptions. Yes, she should be dealing with a qualified lawyer regarding her case.

Ah I didn't know that; and I just checked the I-601 form and it is VERY specific that it DOES NOT include citizenship misrepresentation, so I was wrong on that.
Basically she just have to make them believe that she didn't do it intentionally, so there's still hope I would think.

$7,000 seems like a lot of money. Are you sure that it was an actual payment, or just a deposit into a trust account that the attorney can draw on as they work and then return any unused money to you? Ask for a bill from the attorney that shows you what each charge was for.
Also, maybe the attorney could provide you with a copy of the actual email, showing proof that it was sent on the she says it was? If she sends you an itemized bill and there are a number of problems and/or she is lying about having sent the email, talk to the ethics board with the state bar wherever she is licensed, in order to get disciplinary action taken. It is a shame that a small percentage of lowers give the general profession such a bad name.
With all of that being said, USCIS/NVC does make ridiculous mistakes that cost extra time/money, but in no way mean that the petitioner/attorney is dishonest/incompetent. For example, they claim that I claimed that I checked that I was employed on the I-864, but the photo copies that I sent clearly show that I checked that I was unemployed (student) and despite the fact that my dad was the co-sponsor. This confusion prompted a RFE, and was the result of the incompetence of NVC. The best immigration attorney in the world is going to have a difficult time overcoming something like that, but many clients have a hard time understanding that.

As most people here have said, you do not need an attorney as long as you have a straight forward case. Assuming that your case is straightforward, the only benefit would be that an attorney would save you a quite a bit of time, because you do have to spend quite a bit of time researching. Seeing that money seems to be an issue, I highly doubt that it would be beneficial to you to hire an attorney.
As far as Calvin Nickerbocker, I found this VJ thread. http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/151171-visa-attorney-calvin-knickerbocker/
Now, these might be isolated cases. However, his website does raise a couple of red flags, like the failure to provide any biography, he makes guarantees, willingness to take cases from around the country, etc. If you do seek an attorney in the future, I would make sure that they are local and that you can look at important biographical information like where they graduated from, how many years they have been practicing, etc. etc.

I know that a lot of people are saying that having a ring doesn't matter, but I do feel that our having rings actually did play a big role in our interview. Granted, our interview was for a CR1 visa, not a K1. The last question that the consular officer that interviewed us asked was whether or not we had wedding rings. After we showed her our rings, she informed us that my wife's visa was approved. I can't say that the wedding rings were the deciding factor, but I do feel that we were about to get drilled on a number of questions before we presented our rings, because the interview was not going that well (mainly because the CO could barely speak Spanish and misunderstood what my wife said). Based on what other people have said about Ecuador at least, our interview was not the only one where having a wedding ring/engagement ring was important.
I also understand that rings are not as important in other cultures as in the US, but to be honest, I know very few people that wear wedding rings in Ecuador, so it seems a bit odd that we were asked to show our rings, based on cultural factors. One thing to keep in mind though, is that not all COs are as familiar with local culture as others, and therefore might place more emphasis on important things from American culture, like wedding rings, than others.
In reality, I can't comment on the importance of wedding rings in Uzbekistan, but I know that people from many countries will probably read this, so I think that it is important to share. With that being said, if there is a 1 percent chance that not having a ring could cause an issue, I personally would spend $15 on something temporary and then spend thousands on something nice at a later point (which is what we did).

Getting a tourist visa if you are from Ecuador has always been hard. I don't think that the current diplomatic situation has really changed that. The problem is that about have of the people who are in the United States illegally came to the US on a tourist visa (including many from Ecuador), which makes it extremely hard.
As I am sure you already know, the key to getting a tourist visa is showing that you will return to Ecuador. If every member of her family tries to get a tourist visa at the same time, I imagine that this would only increase the likelihood of denial. If her parent's do not own their home, have cars, and have very good jobs/own their own business, their chances of approval are slim. Someone who is young like her sister getting a tourist visa is even slimmer. However, the best thing that she probably could do is to get accepted to an actual study abroad program. I have friends who have managed to get student visas, although some of them were denied at their first interview. Usually, the study abroad program can help with obtaining the visa.
I don't know if writing a letter will help. My gut feeling is that a letter like you indicated could also be an indication that her sister is coming to a ready made situation to just stay, and not ever go back to Ecuador.

Correction-most lawyers care very much about their clients and go out of their way to help them. There are lawyers that scam their clients for sure, but often times the client should have done more research before hiring a lawyer. What do other people say about the lawyer, do they specialize in whatever legal issue you have questions about, where did they go to school, did you check with the state bar association to see if they have ever been suspended/disciplined, do they actually promise you outcomes (they usually should not), etc? Those are some of the questions you should ask.
I have many friends who are lawyers and frequently way undercharge/ spend ridiculous hours/ etc. etc. because they truly want to help their clients. Of course most of them have marital problems themselves because of this.

I will not directly answer the B1/B2 question because I do not want to give any false information, but I do believe that a call to the Quito Consulate (not Guayaquil...they charge) will likely provide you any details on the legality. With that being said, getting a B1/B2 visa if you are from Ecuador is not easy, but I do have many Ecuadorian friends that have done it. I do not think that it is extremely different though from many countries that are in a similar economic situation. It really settles down to whether you can prove that you have a lot of ties to Ecuador. Having a good education and speaking English alone will not be enough...in fact a some of my Ecuadorian friends with tourist visas do not even speak English. What is important are things like her job (aka salary), whether she owns a car, has a house, has family (aka kids that she would not want to abandon), etc. I had a friend who was about 45 who had three kids, a very nice house, a couple of cars AND was invited by the U of Utah and was still denied, but was later approved when he reapplied, so often times you have to go back a couple of times. Regrettably, the fact that she is thinking about moving permanently with a K1 probably is an indication that she will get denied.
Personally, I do not know why you wouldn't just start the K1 visa and forget about a B1/B2. Sure, she might be able to spend a couple of weeks with you as a tourist on the off chance that she is given a visa, but it is not permanent...unless you are thinking about getting married and adjusting her status in the US. I will caution you that this would constitute visa fraud. People do get away with it but there are numerous risks, like very very long bans.

The "+1" feature has been around for a while now. I'm interested to learn whether it's proving to be an accurate indicator of valuable VJ posts, however that accuracy may be defined.
I've observed that most really good posts (meaning, those that I consider to be good) seem to receive bonuses. (People largely ignore mine, which may speak volumes, si man.)
Admiral, can you please tally the figures to determine which posters seem to be providing the most-bonused posts? Perhaps a ratio of "number of posts-to-bonuses received" would be meaningful, or whatever metric is most statistically valid.
How do the overall tallies change when we exclude Off-Topic Forum posts and perhaps flame-fests or closed threads in other fora?
Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks, si man.

Definitely not true. Check out some of the things that have happened in Ecuador...people have been denied just because the petitioner has not shown up to the interview. Well, I suppose you may be right in so far as you won't be denied without some type of evidence of fraud, but I do not think that the petitioner not showing up would constitute a reasonable amount of fraud to the average person. Now, most embassies do not unofficially require the petitioners presence, which makes it so important that the OP actually say where he/she is from and/or look at the reviews of the particular country.

Here is the CR1 guide. It has the forms that you need. http://www.visajourney.com/content/i130guide1
-The I-130 costs $355
-The NVC total costs are $70 (I-865 affidavit of support) plus $400 (DS-230 visa application)
-The interview, I am a bit confused about how much it is costing; a month ago it was around $130 but I believe they raised it to $400
-the medical appointment needed for the interview costs $100-$150 depending on the country
-After two years in the US you will have to pay $495 to get the ten year green card
-After three years you can become a citizen which costs money
-You will have many other expenses like sending documents back and forth, airline tickets, etc.
It is expensive, but the K1 is even more so. If you have been married two years, you do not have to pay the $495 to get the ten year green card because you are automatically granted one, but its probably not worth waiting.

The Chilean consulate reviews do indicate that the USC is allowed to be present during the interview. http://www.visajourney.com/reviews/index.php?trim=no&cty=&cnty=Chile&page=1&dfilter=5
You will not find anything on the website saying that the USC has to be there...I do not believe that it is the official policy of any consulate (although I may be wrong). However, there are a number of consulates that make it an unofficial policy, like Ecuador. Even though they will not tell you or provide anything on their website, they pretty much automatically deny you if the USC is not present. After reading the interviews for Chile, it does not appear that this is currently unofficial policy at Chile, but things can change quickly due to the fact that consular officers frequently rotate, among other factors. Your presence certainly will not worsen chances (unless you get into a major fight or something like that) and probably can help.

It sounds like you have quite a bit of evidence-I have about the same, except for two fewer trips (although I have spent about a year and a half in the country), but a joint bank account in Ecuador.
I don't want to compare Ecuador to Chile in terms of economy, but in the grand scheme of things, Ecuador I believe is considered to be a very low fraud country compared to others, yet the consulate is notorious for being one of the hardest. The reason is that one of the high administrators at the consulate has spent most of his career fighting human trafficking. Just because Chile seems like it will be easy does not mean that it will be. Do A LOT of research and if you find that they do deny people regularly, bring everything. In Ecuador, you get an automatic denial if the USC is not present at the interview with his or her fiancee/spouse. You literally have to bring a suitcase of evidence and it greatly helps to send a suitcase of evidence with the I 130.

It just depends the consulate. Do not email the consulate and ask...they will tell you that you do not have to be there, because technically you do not. In some countries, the USC is not even allowed to attend the interview (you might want to find this out), in some it is optional and in some it is an unofficial requirement. If you read the reviews for Ecuador, a number of people got blindsided by this requirement. I would read the reviews for the Chilean consulate to see what they say and I have pasted the link at the bottom.
In general, in Latin America the USC is allowed to attend and is usually a benefit, but not always a requirement (I believe that Colombia is a country where it is a benefit but not a requirement). I will warn you though that because consular officers rotate every couple of years, you could find that right now it is not necessary, but in a few months could be. In Ecuador, people have brought literally a suitcase of evidence, but because the USC is not present, the consular officer denies the visa after a very short interview due to "lack of evidence." Its weird, because before 2007, the reviews are much more positive than after, probably because different people were rotated in.
Really, when talking about consulate stuff, it is best to only listen to people that have gone through Chile, because each consulate is run differently. I am just giving you general information and sharing what happens at one of the region's most difficult consulates. I hope and doubt that Chile is so hard, but it is better to be safe than sorry.
Here are the reviews for Chile. It does seem like you are in luck, because they are generally positive and some do mention that the USC is not really required to be there. Unfortunately, the sample size for Chile is quite small; reviews from 2008 may not be a good indicator of what it is like right now. http://www.visajourney.com/reviews/index.php?cnty=Chile&page=1&dfilter=5

WAC=California

As much as you may believe that illegal immigration needs to end (like I do), posting a single incident about a bad apple in no way can be used to make an argument that 12 million people are bad people; I have seen this argument made too many times. The facts show that illegal immigrants actually commit fewer crimes (if you take out their illegality I suppose) than the general US populace. I personally have known multiple people killed by white US citizens who were under the influence. Does this make all white US citizens bad people? Sure, there are plenty of false statics out there that say something like 90 percent of people in Los Angeles County or illegal, but they are false statics. Articles like this are meant to get at emotions and little else.
If you want to get into emotions, watch this video.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36022667#36022667
Now, please don't accuse me of being in favor of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration needs to end because it just is not right to have a subclass group of people, among many other factors.

You probably will get a response from them by emailing, but I wouldn't take their word as is. I don't believe that any consulate requires the USC to be present, but some consulates (like Guayaquil, Ecuador where we will be going) automatically deny people every time if the USC is not present, even if they won't admit it in an email.
Other consulates could careless and some don't even let the USC into the interview, I believe. If money and other factors are an issue and are causing you to lean towards not going, make sure you talk to people who have been through Riyadh and read the consulate reviews to see if going will be a benefit. If you decide not to go, you are of course running the risk that new COs will be transferred to Riyadh and the policy will change. Like I said, each consulate varies so don't trust someone that has not gone through Riyadh or is not very familiar with the Riyadh consulate.

The issue of changing the interview date was discussed in this thread.
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/255099-finally-my-wife-has-an-interviewbut-what-to-do/
I don't know though if they would let you move the date up, but if they told you that that was the quickest slot available I assume that that is correct. I suppose you can keep calling them but that will get expensive, with the $12 fee. If you have the money, why not go back to the United States now to look for a job and get a place to live and then return to Ecuador for the interview, or alternatively you could return to the United States immediately after the interview and your fiancee could follow a couple of months late. Also, be careful to not let your visa expire in Ecuador...I don't know what type of visa you have but if it is a tourist visa, you can only be in Ecuador for 90 days per year. As another poster has learned it can be very expensive to leave Ecuador if you overstay, not to mention that you will be hit with a ban barring you from returning to Ecuador for a number of months.

From what I have read here, getting a joint sponsor (assuming you can find one) will not be a problem in Ecuador-they could care less about your income as long as the paper work is done right, and it does not seem to be too hard to do.
If you have looked at the reviews for Ecuador or have taken a look at the thread that I am pasting at the bottom of my comments, you will have seen that Guayaquil, which is where the interview will take place, is a very difficult consulate. I did not meet my wife through the internet but rather when I was living in Ecuador for over a year, so I am not sure what the COs there tend to think about internet relationships, but I would make my best effort to get as much evidence as possible and send as much of it with your I 130 application (you can make copies of certain items). I do know that recently people have been denied despite the fact that they have known their spouse/fiancee for years, so you need to be extremely cautious. You need to show that you have spent time with your fiancee, have pictures, email/call records and really anything else that you can think of. PAY ATTENTION to whatever tbonex says; he has been here for a couple of years and is very familiar with the consulate in Guayaquil.
As far as criminal conviction, it depends on what exactly happened, just like everybody else is saying. Make sure your fiancee fully understands what happened so that she does not get surprised with a question at the interview. If your "reported income" is not your actual income, you do need to get that straightened out because this is just the start of the process.
Best of luck!
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/110313-us-consulate-in-guayaquil-ecuador/