to him. Id. at 816-18. We disagreed and held that § 241(a)(5) retroactively applies to aliens who illegally reentered the United States prior to IIRI-RA’s effective date but applied for adjustment of status after that date. Id. at 823. We upheld ICE’s determination that the petitioner was statutorily barred, under § 241(a)(5), from adjusting his immigrant status under § 245(i). Id. The only difference between the Labojewski petitioner’s argument and Lino’s argument is that Lino does not make a retroactive application challenge. That difference has no bearing on § 241(a)(5)’s effect on Lino’s adjustment of status application, and, thus, there is no sound basis for departing from our decision in Labojewski. In further support of our conclusion, Lino does not fall into any Congres 2004) (<HOLDING>); Flores v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 727, 731 (8th
holding that aliens whose prior orders of removal are reinstated under  241a5 should not be eligible for relief under  245i because  241a5 states that aliens who fall under this provision may not apply for any relief under this chapter holding that an iirira provision on reinstatement of orders of removal did not apply to aliens who reentered prior to the iiriras effective date holding that an aliens express waiver of his right to appeal to the bia deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the aliens subsequent petition for review holding that claims for equitable relief under  502a3 are only available when a plaintiff has no other relief under erisa holding that sjection 241a5  bars aliens who have illegally reentered the united states after having previously been deported from applying for relief