With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". permanent residence”). This limitation on § 212(h) relief, therefore, does not apply to Gonzalez, who is not and has never been an LPR. See United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1080 n. 2 (9th Cir.2000) (noting that, the § 212(h) limitation on an alien convicted of an aggravated felony did not apply to someone who never was a lawful permanent resident). Our holding thus rests on Gonzalez’s failure to establish that § 1228 disrupted his settled expectations. Gonzalez was ineligible for § 212(h) relief when he was served with a Notice to Appear on December 8, 1997, because of the 1996 amendments to § 1228(b)(5). Therefore, Gonzalez’s argument that his waiver was invalid because he was not informed of his eligibility for relief necessarily fails. Cf. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d at 1051 (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that Gonzalez’s waiver

A: holding that iirira and aedpa are not applicable to criminal alien who entered a guilty plea at a time when alien was eligible for  212c relief
B: holding that alien demonstrated deportation proceedings were fundamentally unfair when alien was deprived effective assistance of counsel
C: holding that the ijs failure to inform alien that he was eligible for relief from deportation constitutes a due process violation if alien establishes prejudice
D: holding that there is no due process violation where the ijs finding was not arbitrary and the alien was not denied a full and fair opportunity to present his claims
C.