MEMORANDUM**

Juan Aaron Aragon-Aviles appeals his conviction, pursuant to a conditional guilty plea, for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Aragon-Aviles contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds *621that his prior removal was invalid. Specifically, Aragon-Aviles contends that because the immigration judge (“IJ”) failed to tell him that he was eligible for relief from removal under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, his removal proceeding was defective and cannot form the basis for a conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2004), we conclude that, at the time of Aragon-Aviles’ 2000 removal hearing, he had a claim for relief under former § 212(c), and the failure of the IJ to inform Aragon-Aviles of his eligibility violated his due process rights. See INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 297, 396, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001); Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d at 1049-50. Aragon-Aviles was therefore deprived of a meaningful opportunity for judicial review, and is exempt from the requirement that he exhaust his administrative remedies. See Ubaldo-Figueroa at 1050; United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000).

In order to succeed in his collateral challenge to his removal order, however, Aragon-Aviles must also show that he suffered prejudice as a result of the violation of his due process rights, by demonstrating that he had a “plausible” ground for relief from removal. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d at 1050. The district court never reached the issue of prejudice, and it should do so in the first instance. See United States v. Leon-Paz, 340 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2003). We therefore vacate the conviction and sentence, and remand to the district court for consideration of whether Aragon-Aviles was prejudiced by the deprivation of his due process rights in his 2000 removal proceeding. See id.

In the event that the district court finds no prejudice, and Aragon-Aviles’ conviction is reinstated, in light of the fact that Aragon-Aviles was sentenced pursuant to the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, the district court should reconsider Aragon-Aviles’ sentence in light of United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, 419 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2005).

Aragon-Aviles’ motion for leave to file a supplemental brief and motion for expedited hearing schedule are denied.

VACATED AND REMANDED.