this decision. Our recent decision in Armendariz-Montoya v. Sonchik is controlling. 291 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir.2002). In ArmendarizMontoya, we held that the application of § 440(d) of the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) to those aliens who were convicted after a jury trial prior to the enactment of AED-PA does not result in an impermissible retroactive effect. Id. at 1122. We reasoned that aliens who proceed to trial could not demonstrate reasonable reliance upon § 212(c) discretionary eligibility because “[ujnlike aliens who pleaded guilty, aliens who elected a jury trial cannot plausibly claim that they would have acted any differently if they had known about § 440(d).” Id. at 1121; cf. INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 321-22, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Serrano pleaded not guilty and chose to
holding that the ijs failure to inform alien that he is eligible for relief from deportation constitutes due process violation where alien establishes prejudice recognizing that an alien is ineligible for relief under  212c if he was not actually admissible at the time he received an adjustment of status 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 recognizing burden is on alien when alien is removable 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