motivated by factors not disclosed on the record — are all inappropriate grounds for deciding that the BIA was not compelled to conclude that the vacatur presented by Rumierz met the Pickering standard. Pursuant to a proper analysis, the record compels a finding that Rumierz has met the burden allocated to him by the BIA. 2. Whether the vacatur meets the Pickering standard In order to determine whether a vacatur is tied to a defect in the underlying conviction, rather than rehabilitative or immigration-related purposes, the BIA starts by examining the order itself. See Pickering, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 624. Often, the statutory basis for the order will resolve whether the underlying conviction remains valid for immigration purposes. Compare Matter of Adamiak, 23 I. & N. Dec. 878 (BIA 2006) (<HOLDING>) and Matter of Rodriguez-Ruiz, 22 I. & N. Dec.
holding that a conviction vacated by operation of a state rehabilitative statute still constitutes a conviction 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 holding that to establish a conviction for immigration purposes a court must accept a guilty plea or jury verdict make an adjudication and impose a sentence holding that an attorney is required to advise a defendant of the direct consequences of a plea and will not be found ineffective for failing to advise of collateral consequences of the plea holding that all convictions remain valid for immigration purposes