recognized exemption from § 241(a)(5). In 2000, Congress specifically exempted certain aliens applying for adjustment of status from § 241(a)(5). See Pub.L. No. 106-554, App. D § 1505. The amendments revised section 202 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”) and section 902(a) of the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (“HRIFA”). The House report accompanying those amendments states that their intended effect was “to permit Nicaraguans, Cubans, and Haitians eligible for adjustment of status ... to receive this relief despite having been previously removed under an order of removal.... ” H.R.Rep. No. 106-1048, at 231 (2001). These limited exemptions for NACARA and HRIFA eligible aliens strongly undermine Lino’s argument that Congress inten 4) (<HOLDING>); Warner v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 534, 540 (6th
holding that the substantive defenses to removal eliminated by 8 usc  1231a5  may not be retroactively denied to aliens who illegally reentered prior to enactment holding that zadvydas applies to inadmissible aliens who have illegally entered the united states holding that sjection 241a5  bars aliens who have illegally reentered the united states after having previously been deported from applying for relief 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 recognizing that the plain language of  1326a establishes that a previously deported alien who illegally enters and remains in the united states can violate the statute at three different points in time namely when the alien 1 enters 2 attempts to enter or 3 is at any time found in the united states