[ PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
February 17, 2006
No. 05-13003 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar 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, § 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