continued to be available following IIRIRA). Gonzalez-Roque has thus failed to show that he was improperly denied the opportunity for judicial review. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Gonzalez-Roque’s collateral challenge to his deportation order is insufficient as a matter of law. The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the case is remanded for reinstatement of the indictment. 1 . Although Gonzalez-Roque entered the country as a lawful permanent resident, he became a deportable alien as a result of his conviction. The adjustment of status procedure allows a qualifying deportable alien to change his status to that of an alien who had not committed the offense which otherwise rendered him deportable. See Tibke v. INS, 335 F.2d 42, 44-47 (2d Cir.1964) (<HOLDING>); Matter of Rainford, 20 I. & N. Dec. 598,
holding that departure based on deportable alien status was prohibited holding that defendants status as a deportable alien could be considered by the district court at sentencing holding that a lawful permanent resident alien is entitled to seek relief under ina  212c holding that deportable alien status is not a ground for departing downward holding that adjustment of status was permitted even if deportable alien had entered the country as a lawful permanent resident