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
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 holding that alien demonstrated deportation proceedings were fundamentally unfair when alien was deprived effective assistance of counsel 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 iirira and aedpa are not applicable to criminal alien who entered a guilty plea at a time when alien was eligible for  212c relief holding that failure to advise an alien of possible forms of relief may violate due process