[ DO NOT PUBLISH]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

- Appell ee ,

versus YANETH MARGARITA CORONELL,
Defendant

- Appell ant

.

________________________ 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 42 Yaneth Marg arita 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 perman ent 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. Afte r 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 Mar c i al 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 , s ee INA § 316(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a) , which she was granted when she took the oath of allegiance on December 19, 2007.
Shortl y thereafter, the government accused Cordero of filing more than two hundred fraudulent applications for immigrant visas and adjustment of status

. Coronell’s application w as 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 43 INA § 340(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). T he 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.
T he district court agreed with the government’s po sition and granted the motion. On appeal, Coronell challenges neither the district court’s determination that her perm anent resident status was un lawfully 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 statu te of limitations applicable to denaturalization complaints premised on the invalidity of the underlying grant of permanent residen t 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 44 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