diadromous mermaid

Well, then you should know that USCIS is only concerned with the intent of the alien upon entering the marriage. If there are issues after marriage and the adjustment of status approval the alien is not bound to remain married in order to preserve residency status.

It means that on its face you appear to have sufficient cause to request relief. In other words, once you submit the forms and your personal declaration to USCIS uner VAWA, a preliminary review is made of your file to see if you have any basis for a claim or not. Once a prima facie determination is made, the case will proceed to review, where the Service will interview you and adjudicate the application. This takes time, quite a lot of time, so the preliminary determination helps to at least permit the alien to secure aid, if eligible, while the application is being determined.

Actually the VAWA Act was established because of this very situation. Before VAWA, many aliens that were subjected to abuse at the hand of their sponsors, were forced to remain in the abusive relationship because to leave would mean an automatic end to their immigration options. The VAWA Act does not require that the alien be divorced from the abuser, nor does it require the alien to have separated from the abusive USC spouse. At least not directly, anyway. Furthermore, the VAWA process is a two-step process, the first being the submission by a battered alien, for a prima facie determination. That determination only begins the journey, and often times the alien has no opportunity to support him/herself until the I-360 is reviewed and approved (if they submit a compelling enough claim, that is), later. It is only once the I-360 has been approved and if USCIS declares the alien has deferred action status, that the alien can attain an EAD, and presumably get some sort of income to be able to sustain outside the marital home.

Good sense of humour, but I doubt it would be polygamy unless hubbies one, two and three were all at the same time
On a serious note, scrutiny of age differences may be commonplace in all consulates as are other signals, regardless of local custom, but that its overcome with sufficient evidence of a bona fide relationship. I think certain conulates look at some of the classic "red flags" because of the higher incidence and frequency of fraud.

Good sense of humour, but I doubt it would be polygamy unless hubbies one, two and three were all at the same time
On a serious note, scrutiny of age differences may be commonplace in all consulates as are other signals, regardless of local custom, but that its overcome with sufficient evidence of a bona fide relationship. I think certain conulates look at some of the classic "red flags" because of the higher incidence and frequency of fraud.

I'm sure there are plenty of sham marriages that have a mountain of evidence to attempt to demonstrate the legitimacy of the marriage. Concocted, or otherwise, I'm sure. In fact, I'd be inclined to bet that most of those sham arrangements, dash to a bank and open some sort of checking account, while there are many legitimate couples that marry for the "right reason", immigration-wise, that are so wrapped up in the concept and day-to-day living of marital life, that forget to, or don't place an enormous emphasis or sense of urgency on getting around to the co-mingling of finances.
After all, think about it. Upon marrying, how many of us think or have the mindset of "We'll be together forever, what's the rush?" or "I didn't marry to get my name on her assets. It's not about the money", or "what's his is mine, and what's mine is his, anyway!". So, in reality, the legitimate couples are somewhat less inclined to palce an emphasis on dealing with the technicalities. Whereas, the sham artists, by design, are focused ONLY on that, and even if one of the parties is not even aware of the fact that the marriage is not legitimate (Yes, there is something known to USCIS as unilateral fraud) the other, believe me, is ONLY focused on gathering whatever bonafides can be attained. After all, to the alien trying to pull the wool over the Service's eyes and anyone in his or her path, that's their only hurdle, right? Getting bonafides in order!
So, lucyrich, unless you've experienced something that I haven't.... I don't think I'd be inclined to characterise it this way.

I wasn't arguing, thank you. I was correcting your misinformation.
Let's get some facts straight....

Yes, that is accurate
This is not accurate and therefore not true. If a request to withdraw one's endorsement on an alien's petition that resulted in a green card is accepted (in other words accompanied by sufficient substantive evidence to support the request) it will result in the obligation under the I-864 being released.

Inaccurate again. If the alien is conferred status through the marriage-based process, withdrawal of endorsement by the USC petitioner would result in the alien's loss of status, and the petitioner being let off the hook for the Affidavit of Support. Significant impact.
By the way, on a personal note, why is it that if anyone adds to something you've written (note that I didn't state that what you wrote was wrong in my first quote) I simple placed more accurate information around it, you consider that I am arguing? Are you that sure of yourself that you think your word is everything and that if someone doesn't agree with you in totality that they are being impudent? That really bugs me!

Actually, false claims to be an immigration attorney could be construed as a violation of the TOS.

Falsifying a criminal report, as in a false claim of identity theft against an alien, is NOT wise advice. There's been no fraud alleged. The OP simply said divorce is the recommendation. People, where are your scruples and ethics?

This comment is really out of line. While a prima facie determination on an I-360 is not an outright approval, it is the result of a review and a determination that on its face the alien appears eligible. Why on earth would an alien that is eligible to seek relief in such a manner feel obliged to "go home"?

Perhaps there is an agenda on the part of the alien; perhaps there is not. You say you supported her for 10 months prior to her arrival. Is it posible that she was lead to believe that this would continue once she arrived? My recommendation would be to involve her in the financial decisions to show her that there simply is not enough money available to continue such luxuries and measure her response and behaviour afterwards. It might indicate an underlying objective, and then again it might solve the issue.

You do? I don't see proof in your explanation of the facts. The fact of the matter as I see it is that you are reaping the rewards of having "called her bluff". Of course she would have recourse, provided by an immigrants' assistance group. You were threatening to have her deported, when you don't have the right or the power to do so. You should simply have honoured her request and proceeded to divorce.

Just wondering why it is that you believe your "wife" has to ask your permission to use funds that are in a joint account? Granted you may have earned those funds, but what perplexes me is your notion of the fact that after marriage, what's yours is yours. She isn't a neighbour, she's your wife.

Well, we'll have to de-expert him, now won't we?

This is a totally incorrect perception. How can you suggest such a thing? Many victims of abuse are systematically beaten down psychologically by the abuser such that they begin to justify the heinous acts of the abuser and can even begin to take responsibility for the abuse. It is also not uncommon that some forms of abuse are so awful that the victim can bury the memories so deeply (involuntarily) that it might take years to uncover.
By the way, many individuals that have been diagnosed as bi-polar live relatively normal lives when taking the appropriate medications. So, you'd banish them to spinsterhood and bachelorhood, eh?
Jusashooter, please do not make judgments on that which is very clearly unfamiliar to you.

Actually, false claims to be an immigration attorney could be construed as a violation of the TOS.

Who are you????? And what the heck are you talking about? Oh, nevermind, I know who you are!!!! You're name may be changed, but the style speaks volumes.
However, you don't know what you are talking about. Contradictions galore!
Does this sound at all familiar?

It should. You wrote it a few days ago.

From the little you've shared about the specifics, it's hard to know what her intentions were from the start. My hunch is that it was a genuine relationship between two people that grew apart during the years. You say you had a lot going against you. Perhaps it is the result of that and othe day-to-day issues. We can't know.
What I can share is that it is unlikely that someone that was only interested in being able to move and reside in the USA would have been able to maintain a facade for 8 years. Nor would an individual that had ulterior motives either encourage or go along with a spouse adopting her child if she knew that within a matter of years the relationship would no longer serve a purpose. I think you need to let the news settle in a bit before you jump to any conclusions like that.
To the rest of the people that responded to this thread with sarcastic comments or troll alert claims:
Please resist the sick temptation. I don't know from one post whether a member is genuine or not. And I suspect neither can you. If you think a member is a troll, please wait until it becomes patently obvious before having your fun. The hazards of that behavior to what might very well be a legitimate plea for help could be dire. Please use common sense.

There could be two ways to interpret the notion that she likens the marriage to a business transaction. First, we don't know if those were her exact words, verbatim, or if she said something along those lines. If she said it exactly that way, then her intentions were not sincere. But depending upon context, I wouldn't find a spouse intent on ending a relationship and referring to separating and terminating a marriage as akin to a "business transaction" all that out of line. At the point where love and commitment are gone, the next steps taken in unravelling a marriage are equivalent to a business transaction

Sounds like you control more than just the money.....

If it was purchased after marriage then it could be considered a marital asset.

He bought the house you are living in didn't he? Why do you think there is not enough evidence that he intended to share a life with you?

So, Sallygirl and Sallyboy are posting as one, eh? The answer is that bonafides of marriage would be required to petition to remain in the USA if a divorce occurs. I doubt that an annulment would be honoured by the courts, since you're both attesting that the marriage was and is legitimate.
Bonafides of marriage can be demonstrated by showing that you shared a common residence and shared responsibilities with finances AND the biggie is that any tax returns filed dueing the marriage showed you as married.

Does he drive? If so, what address does he have on his drivers license? What about hers? Does it share the same address? Does the auto have an insurance policy? If so, can he get copies of those policies? What about the checking account? Can he get copies o cancelled checks for some of the utilities that are in her name paid by check with his address on it? Does he receive mail at the marital home address? Surely, if she gives him little spending money then he must turn over his paycheck to her. Does she put that in the joint checking account? Does he have statements to show that they both deposit money into the account? You have to tell him to get creative in painting the whole picture.

Just as you don't think it would be right for him to remove you from "your home", I think it works the other way as well. He has a right to live there until the courts decide who gets what.