[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-12301

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-22533-MGC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

YANETH MARGARITA CORONELL,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 4, 2014)

Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-12301 Date Filed: 02/04/2014 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Yaneth Margarita Coronell appeals the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment in favor of the government in its action to revoke her naturalized U.S. 

citizenship. On appeal, Coronell argues that the five-year statute of limitations 

applicable to the rescission of lawful permanent resident status under Immigration 

and Nationality Act (INA) § 246(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1256(a), precludes the revocation 

of her naturalized U.S. citizenship. After careful review, we affirm. 

Coronell, a native of Colombia, first entered the United States on January 

19, 1992 with her husband, Alvaro De La Hoz. The couple joined a church in 

Hialeah, Florida in 1997 and quickly learned from other members that Marcial 

Cordero claimed that he could secure immigrant visas and permanent resident 

status for church members. The couple sought out Cordero’s services. Based on 

false claims that De La Hoz was a religious worker, Cordero secured permanent 

resident status for both De La Hoz and Coronell. Coronell’s status as a permanent 

resident made her eligible for naturalization as a U.S. citizen, see INA § 316(a), 8 

U.S.C. § 1427(a), which she was granted when she took the oath of allegiance on 

December 19, 2007. 

Shortly thereafter, the government accused Cordero of filing more than two 

hundred fraudulent applications for immigrant visas and adjustment of status. 

Coronell’s application was among those fraudulent filings. As a result, the United 

States filed a complaint to revoke Coronell’s naturalized citizenship pursuant to 

Case: 13-12301 Date Filed: 02/04/2014 Page: 2 of 4 
3

INA § 340(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). The government moved for summary judgment, 

arguing that the undisputed facts established that Coronell failed to lawfully obtain

permanent resident status, a prerequisite for naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1429. 

The district court agreed with the government’s position and granted the motion. 

On appeal, Coronell challenges neither the district court’s determination that 

her permanent resident status was unlawfully obtained nor the determination that 

lawful permanent resident status is a prerequisite to naturalization. Rather, she 

argues for the first time on appeal that INA § 246(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1256(a), creates a

five-year statute of limitations applicable to denaturalization complaints premised 

on the invalidity of the underlying grant of permanent resident status. “This Court 

has repeatedly held that an issue not raised in the district court and raised for the 

first time in an appeal will not be considered by this court.” Access Now, Inc. v. 

Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). 

While we recognize that the requirement that a litigant present an argument to the

district court before raising it on appeal is not a jurisdictional one, and so we “may

choose” to hear an otherwise waived argument, id. at 1332, we decline to exercise 

that discretion here. Moreover, Coronell has not argued, nor do we conclude based 

on our independent review, that this case presents one of the “exceptional”

circumstances in which we have permitted issues to be raised for the first time on 

appeal. See id. 

Case: 13-12301 Date Filed: 02/04/2014 Page: 3 of 4 
4

For this reason, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment. 

Case: 13-12301 Date Filed: 02/04/2014 Page: 4 of 4