Liliam Centeno v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 05-13003 (11th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[ PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 05-13003 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT February 17, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. A76-891-260 LILIAM CENTENO, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondents. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (February 17, 2006) Before MARCUS, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Liliam Centeno, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) decision, affirming the Immigration Judge s ( IJ ) order denying her application for adjustment of status under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 ( NACARA ), Pub.L.No. 105-100, ยง 202, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193 (1998). The IJ found that Centeno had provided no statutorily sufficient evidence to establish her presence in the United States prior to December 1995, and, therefore, she was statutorily ineligible for permanent resident status. Centeno argues that she presented sufficient evidence to establish her presence in the United States prior to December 1995, because 8 C.F.R. 245.13 uses permissive language, and, thus, the types of evidence enumerated there are illustrative, rather than exhaustive. Therefore, she contends, an envelope bearing a Nicaraguan postal mark reading Navidad 1995" and addressed to her in Miami, Florida, was sufficient proof of her presence in the United States, especially since the address contained on that envelope was consistent with the information contained in a Department of Justice Biographical Information form, also submitted to the court. Before considering the merits of a petition, we must first consider whether we have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petition at all. Resendiz-Alcaraz v. 2 U.S. Att y Gen., 383 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11 th Cir. 2004). Section 202(f) of NACARA states that [a] determination by the Attorney General as to whether the status of any alien should be adjusted under this section is final and shall not be subject to review by any court. Id. Additionally, we have held that [a] decision by the Attorney General regarding whether an alien established that his status should be adjusted under NACARA is not review able by any court. Ortega v. U.S. Att y Gen., 416 F.3d 1348, 1350 (11 th Cir. 2005). As the IJ, affirmed by the BIA, has denied Centeno s application for adjustment of status under the NACARA, we are without jurisdiction to review this decision, and the petition must be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
