or to avoid adverse immigration hardships, rather than on the basis of a procedural or substantive defect in the underlying criminal proceedings, the conviction is not eliminated for immigration purposes.... This interpretation of the law is consistent with that of other circuits and with our own interpretation. A conviction vacated for rehabilitative or immigration reasons remains valid for immigration purposes, while one vacated because of procedural or substantive infirmities does not. See Zaitona v. I.N.S., 9 F.3d 432 (6th Cir.1993); see also Murillo-Espinoza v. I.N.S., 261 F.3d 771 (9th Cir.2001); Herrera-Inirio v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 299 (1st Cir.2000); Sandoval v. I.N.S., 240 F.3d 577 (7th Cir.2001); but compare Renteria-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 322 F.3d 804 (5th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) with Discipio v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 472 (5th
holding that all convictions under wisconsin sexual assault statute were not per se convictions for crimes of violence holding sentences include all consequences of convictions holding that the pendency of postconviction motion does not negate the finality of convictions for immigration removal purposes holding that all convictions remain valid for immigration purposes holding that a conviction vacated under ohio revised code  2943031 for the trial courts failure to advise the alien defendant of the possible immigration consequences of a guilty plea is no longer a valid conviction for immigration purposes