What are the facts, identify the issue, use the rule, analyze fact based on rule and state the conclusion).

Please see below.

U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office Services MATTER OF T-L- . ; DATE: JUNE 15, 2018 APPEAL OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE DECISION APPLICATION: FORM I-212, APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO REAPPLY FOR ADMISSION INTO THE UNITED STATES AFTER DEPORTATION OR REMOVAL The Applicant, a native and citizen of China, will be inadmissible upon his departure from the United States for having been previously ordered removed and seeks permission to reapply for admission to the United States. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 212(a)(9)(A)(iii), 8 US.C. 1182(a)(9)(A)iii). Permission to reapply for admission to the United States is an exception to this inadmissibility, which U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may grant in the exercise of discretion. The Director of the New York, New York Field Office denied the application, determining that the Applicant did not merit a favorable exercise of discretion. On appeal, the Applicant asserts that the Director erred by not giving sufficient weight to the positive factors in his case. | Upon de nove review, we will dismiss the appeal. I. LAW Section 212(a)(9)(A)(ii) of the Act provides, in part, that a foreign national, other than an \"arriving alien,\" who has been ordered removed under section 240 or any other provision of law, or who departed the United States while an order of removal was outstanding, and who seeks admission within 10 years of the date of such departure or removal, is inadmissible. Foreign nationals found inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(A) of the Act may seek permission to reapply for admission under section 212(a)(9)(A)(iii) of the Act if, prior to the date of the reembarkation at a place outside the United States or attempt (o be admitted from foreign continuous territory, the Secretary of Homeland Security has consented to the foreign national's reapplying for admission. The Applicant currently resides in the United States and is seeking conditional approval of his application under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 212.2(j) before departing, as he will be inadmissible upon his departure due to his prior removal order. The approval of his application under these Matter of F circumstances is conditioned upon the Applicant's departure from the United States and would have no-effect if he fails to depart. Approval of an application for permission to reapply is discretionary, and any unfavorable factors will be weighed against the favorable factors to determine if approval of the application is warranted as a matter of discretion. Matter of Lee, 17 I&N Dec. 275, 278-79 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). Factors to be considered in determining whether to grant permission to reapply include the basis for the prior deportation; the recency of deportation; length of residence in the United States; the applicant's moral character; the applicant's respect for law and order; evidence of the applicant's reformation and rehabilitation; family responsibilities; any inadmissibility under other sections of law; hardship involved to the applicant or others; and the need for the applicant's services in the United States. Matter of Tin, 14 1&N Dec. 371 (Reg'l Comm'r 1973); see also Matter of Lee, supra, at 278 (finding that a record of immigration violations, standing alone, does not conclusivety show lack of good moral character, and \"the recency of the deportation can only be considered when there is a finding of poor moral character based on moral turpitude in the conduct ang attitude of a person which evinces a calloes conscience). The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held in Garcia-Lopes v.INS, 923 F.2d 72 (7th Cir. 1991), that less weight is given to equities acquired after a deportation order has been entered. 1t is also noted that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Carnalla-Munoz v. INS, 627 F.2d 1004 (Sth Cir. 1980), held that an after-acquired equity, referred to as an after-acquired family tie in Matter of Tz;am 22 1&N Dec. 408 (BIA 1998), need not be accorded great weight by the district director in a discretionary determination. Further, the equity of a marriage-and the weight given to any hardsmp to the spouse is diminished if the parties married after the commencement of deportation proceedings, with knowledge that the alien might be deported. In Ghassan v. INS, 972 F.2d 631, 634-35 (5th Cir. 1992), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that giving diminished weight 10 hardship faced by a spouse who entered into a marriage with knowledge of the alin's possible: deportation was proper. We find these legal decisions stablish the general principle that \"after- acquired equmcs are accorded less weight for purposes of assessing favorable equities in the exercise of discretion. II. ANALYSIS The issue presented on appeal is whether the Applicanl merits conditional approvai of his application for permission to reapply for admission in the exercise of discretion. The Apphczmt does not contest that upon departure from the United States, he will become inadmissible under section 212(a)(I)AX(ii) of the Act for having been previously ordered removed, a finding supported by the record.\" -On appeal, we find that the Applicant has not demonstrated that he merits conditional approval of his application as a matter of discretion. n April 7, 2000. The record reflects that he after presenting a fraudulent Korean 2001 and after waiving appeal; was Th{. Apphmnt states that he entered the United States without admi 72 Maiter of T-L- The Applicant submitted numerous documents with his application including: affidavits from him and his U.S. citizen spouse; a copy of his marriage certificate; a copy of his-spouse's naturalization certificate; copies of birth certificates for him and his three U.S. citizen children; copies of prescriptions filled for his spouse; copies of federal and state income taxes filed by his spouse from 2007 to 2015; copies of utility bills in his spouse's name; a copy of his mother-in-law's permanent resident card; two undated photographs of family members; and information from the U.S. Department of State regarding travel for U.S. citizens in China. On appeal, the Applicant submits a brief asserting that the Director erred in denying conditional permission to reapply for admission, and contends that he merits a favorable exercise of discretion, As noted above, approval of an application for permission to reapply is discretionary, and any unfavorable factors will be weighed against the favorable factors to determine if approval of the application is warranted as a matter of discretion. Matter of Lee, supra. Favorable factors for the Applicant include: his family ties in the United States, such as his U.S. citizen spouse and their three U.S. citizen minor children; any hardship that would be incurred by his family members if the Applicant departed the United States; and his apparent lack of a criminal record. Unfavorable factors include: the Applicant's manner of entry into the United States; his use of a fraudulent passport; his failure to depart after being granted voluntary departure and his breach of bond; his lengthy unlawful presence in the United States; and his unauthorized employment. We note that the Applicant's marriage 10 his spouse occurred in 2006, five years after his removal order become final. His family ties and any hardship to his family are considered afier-acquired equities, which are accorded less weight for purposes of assessing favorable equities in the exercise of discretion. The Applicant and his U.S. citizen spouse have three U.S. citizen children, currently ages 6,9, and 10, According to the Applicant's spouse, she earns approximately $1,300 per month, which covers the family's rent and other living expenses. The Applicant claims that he works odd jobs as a kitchen helper, does the household cleaning, and prepares meals for his family. He has not provided any documentation to corroborate the financial assistance that he claims to provide 1o the household. The Applicant has submitted copies of tax returns filed by his spouse, but these returns do not list the Applicant as a family member; there is no indication that he has himself has ever filed federal or stale income tax returns.? Aside from immigration violations, the Applicant has no apparent criminal record. ' 'The Applicant has also submitted copies of prescription information for three medications prescribed 1o his spouse. She claims in her affidavit to have been diagnosed with schizophrenia prior to her marriage to the Applicant, which is currently under control with medication. She has not provided any additional medical documentation to verify her previous diagnosis or her current medical granted voluntary departure for 120 days. The Applicant did not depart within 120 days as required and his removal order became final. ? We also note that the federal and state tax returns filed by the Applicant's 5pousc from 2007 to 2010 st her as single, " even though she married the Applicant in 2006. Matter of T-L- condition. The Applicant states that he helps his spouse by picking up her medication and also assists her mother, who is currently living with them. The evidence provided by the Applicant indicates that he has developed family ties after being ordered removed and that his family will incur some degree of hardship typical of the common consequences of removal if he departs the United States. The unfavorable factors for the Applicant, however, outweigh any positive ones, as the Applicant has not complied with the immigration laws, starting from his initial entry into the United States in 2000. The Applicant states on his application that he entered the United States without inspection on April 7, 2000. On 2000, he was apprehended at the after presenting a fraudulent Korean passport. He was asked by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers to provide his name and nationality, but refused to do so, and was placed in removal proceedings. During the Applicant's removal proceedings, he was released on a $5,000 bond on condition that he voluntarily depart the United States within the specified period allowed by the Immigration Court. On 2001, the Applicant waived appeal and was granted 120 days to voluntarily depart in lieu of a final order of removal. Instead of departing the United States as required, he breached his $5,000 bond, his removal order became final, and he remained unlawfully in the United States. From October 17, 2001, the Applicant has continued to live unlawfully in the United States and, as indicated on his G-325A, Biographic Information form, has also worked in the United States without authorization since at least January 2009 without filing federal and state income tax returns. The Applicant's repeated violations of U.S. immigration laws during the last 18 years, including his breach of his immigration bond, as well as his failure to pay taxes, are negative factors that, after reviewing the entirety of the record and the totality of circumstances, outweigh the favorable ones. Accordingly, the Applicant has not demonstrated that he merits approval of his waiver application and the application will remain denied. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. Cite as Matter of T-L-, ID# 1596849 (AAO June 15, 2018)