Arce-Hernandez seeks. If Congress intended § 440(a) to bar collateral review in connection with an appeal of a criminal conviction for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (illegal reentry), it could have done so by using language like that in § 423(a), cited above. It did not do so. Thus, we conclude that § 440(a) does not deprive us of jurisdiction to consider Arce-Hernandez’s collateral attack on the underlying deportation order. III. WAS THE DEFECT PREJUDICIAL? The government now concedes that Arce-Hernandez’s deportation hearing was tainted by a procedural defect, inasmuch as the IJ failed to advise him of his possible eligibility for relief from deportation, as then required by 8 C.F.R. § 242.17(a). This provision is mandatory. See Moran-Enriquez v. INS, 884 F.2d 420, 422 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Under § 245, Arce-Hernandez could have sought
holding that there is no due process right to appellate review holding that there is no substantive due process right under the fourteenth amendment to be free from malicious prosecution 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 holding that there is a due process right to be informed if one appears to be eligible for relief from deportation under ina  212h and 245 8 usc  1182h and 1255a holding that the ijs failure to inform alien that he is eligible for relief from deportation constitutes due process violation where alien establishes prejudice