### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10616

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. HO S I K JANG D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas

B e fo r e D AV IS , O W E N , a n dH AY N E S , C ir c u it J u d g e s . H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg e: In t h i s case, t h e di st ri ctcourtf ou n d that D efen da n tH o Sik Jan g, a cit i zen of Sou t h K orea subj ectt o a f i n alorder of

r e m oval f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates, vi o l at e d as pe c i a la n dman d a t o ryc o n d i t i o n o f hi s s upe r vi s e d r e l e as e b y pr o vi di ng
m is le a d in ga n s w e r s to q u e s tio n s p o s e db yaK o r e a n co n s u la te re s u ltin gi n h is
n o n - a d mi t t a n c e t o K o r e a . We a f f i r m. I . FACTS In D ecem ber 200 3, an i m m i grati on j u dg e ord ered Jan g’ s deportat i on f rom t he U ni t e d St at e s b as e d o n t w o Te xa s c o nvi c t i o ns . Af t e re xha us t i ng va r i o us appeal s, Jang r epe at edly fai l ed t o c om pl ete a vi saappl i c at i on t o Sout h K or ea. B a s e do n th is c o n d u c t, th e g o v e r n m e n t in d ic te dJ a n gu n d e r8 U .S .C . § United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 30, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10616

2 1 2 5 3 (a )(1 )(B ), w h ic h fo rb id s a n a lie n u n d e rafin a l o r d e ro f r e m o v a l fr o m w ilfu lly fai l i n g o rr e f

us i ng t o c o m pl e t e do c um e nt s ne c e s s ar y t o e ns ur e hi s de pa r t ur e. A ft er a j u ryretu rn ed a gu i l ty ve rd i ct, th e d i stri ct co u rt sen ten ced Ja n g to th i rty t h ree m on t h s’im pri sonm en t , f ol l ow ed bya t w o year t erm of sup ervi sed rel ease. T h e di st ri ctcourti m posedt h e f ol l ow i n g speci alcondit i on of rel ease: [t] he de fe nda nt s hallc o m ply w i t h a l li m m i gr at i o n r e gul at i o ns a nd l aws i nc l udi ng al la dm i ni s t r at ive pr o c e dur e s t o e f fe c tt he s uc c e s s f

ul rem oval of

t h e defen da n tf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates, w h i ch i n cl u des si gn i n g t h e I N S F orm I

- 229 an d com pl et i n g a K orean V i sa ap pl i c at i o n. As w i t h al li ndivi dua l s o n s upe r vi s e d r e l e as e , J angw as a l s o s ubj e c tt o t he
m an da t ory cond i t i on prohibi t i n g h i m f rom com m i t t i n g an ot h er f ederal , st ate, or lo c a l cr im e . In Ju n e of

2 00 7, J angw as r e l e as e d f r o m pr i s o n t o t he c us t o dyof I m m i gr at i o n a nd Cus t o m s Enf o r c e m e nt ( I CE )

. H e a ga i n r e f us e d t o c o m pl e t e t he docu m en t s necessary t o ensu re hi s deportat i on . A s a r esul t , Jan g’ s probati on off icer fi l ed a P eti ti on f or O ff en d er U n d er S u p erv i sion w i th the distri ct cou rt. Fol l ow i ng hi s ar r es t , Jang appear ed bef or e t he di st r i c t c our t , pr om i si ng t o s i gn a K orean vi sa app l i cat i on . H e t ol d the di st ri ctcourtt h at he w ou l d rather be f ree i n K orea t h an i n carcer ated i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates. C on sequ en t l y, t h e di st ri ct court al l ow ed Ja n g’ s s u pervi sed rel ease t o conti n u e. A f t er t h e hea ri n g, Jan g, as p ro m ised, com pl et ed the K orean vi sa a p p l i ca ti on an dsi gn ed th e IN S F orm I-22 9
. In a d d i ti on , K ore a req u i res th a t its ci t i zens repatri ate on a vol u n t ary basi s. T h e c o u n t ry deter m i n es w h et h er a c i t i ze n’ s r epatriati on i s vol untar y vi a an i nt ervi ew c onduct ed bya K or ean c o n s u la te
. If

th e co n s u la te d e te r m in e s th a t t h e in d iv id u a l d e s ir e s t o re tu r n , a t ravelcer t i f

i cat e i s i ssued

. Jan g’ s i n t ervi ew w i t h t h e consulat e w as cond u ct ed i n private over t h e ph on e.N o. 08- 10616

3 Af t e rt he i nt e r vi e w , t he K o r e an c o ns ul at e s e nt a l e t t e rt o t he D e pa r t m e nt of H om el and Secur i t y, s t at i ng: W e h a v e d iff

icu lti e s iss u in gth e T /C [T ra v e l C e rtifica te ]. The i m po r t antfac t o r s w e c o ns i de rb e f o re i s s ui ng a T/ C ar e t he depor t ee ’ s w i l l i ngness t o g o b ac k t o K or ea and pendi ng l egal p r o c e s s e s i f

a n y . We h a v e d i r e c tc o n t a c twit h a d e p o r t e e , wh e n we r e c e iv e th e T /C re q u e s t fr o m a n Im m ig r a tio n O ffic e , to m a k e s u r e if a) he w an t s t o ret u rn to K orea an d the si gn ature on the ap pl i cat i on for t h e T / C w a s m a d e w i th h i s ow n w i l lan di f b ) h e is go i n g to ap pea lf

o rt he c as e . W e i s s ue T/ C’ s w he n t he a bo ve m e nt i on ed r e quir e m e nt s a r e c l ar i f i e d. D u ri n g m y conversati on w ith M r. Jan g, he tol d m e hi s s i gn ature wa s n o tma d e v o l u n t a r i l ya n dh e d i d n ’ twa n tt o r e t u r n t o Ko r e a . H e a ls o e x p r e s s e dh is s tr o n gw ill to a p p e a l to th e c o u r t o f T e x a s fo rh is case. W i t h t he abo ve r eas ons , t he K or ean Consul at e G ener alw on’ tbe abl e t o i ss ue a T/ C f

orM r . Jang.
A f t er r eceivi n g t h i s l et t er, Jan g’ s probati on of f i cer f i l ed an ot h er Peti t i on f o rO f fe nde rU nde rSupe r vi s i o n. The pe t i t i o n al l e ge d t hat Ja ng’ s a ns w e r s t o t he K orean consul at e ’ s q ue s t i o ns vi o l at e d thea f o r e m e nt i o ne d s pe c i ala n d m an da t ory c o ndi t i o ns o f hi s r e l e as e . At t he s ubs e que nt r e vo c at i o n he ar i ng, t he g o ve r nm e nt of fered t h e K orean consulat e’ s l et t er as evi den ce and cal l ed IC E agen tJam es Sm i t h t o t e s t i f

y. Age ntSm i t h t e s t i f i e d t hatJ ang ’ s a ns w e r s t o t he q ue s t i o ns p o s e db yt h e Ko r e a n c o n s u l a t e v i o l a t e dt h e s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n o f h i s r e l e a s e . As t o t h e m an da t ory con di t i on of rel ease, A gen tSm i t h t est i f i ed that Jan g’ s answ ers vi ol ated 8 U .S

. C

. § 1253 , al t h ou gh he d i d n otspeci f y t h e parti cul ar subsect i on im p lic a te d

. J a n go ffe r e dn o e v id e n c e in re b u tt a l. B ased on t h i s t est i m on y , th e di st ri ctcourtrevoked Jan g’ s s u pervi sed rel ease, st ati n g “ I don ’ t t h i n k you [Jan g] ha ve an y i n t en t i on of abi di n g by an y of t h e o r de r s o f anybo dy

. And s o be i t [ s i c s o be i t]

. ” The di s t r i c t c o urtsentencedN o. 08- 10616

4 Jang t o t w e nt y- f

o urm o nt hs i n pr i s o n pl us a n a ddit i o naly e aro f s uper vi sed rel ease. W h en Jan g obj ect ed to h i s s en t en ce o f t w en t y- f

ou r m on t h s’ i m pr i s o nm e nta s unr e as o nab l e , t he di s t r i c tc o ur ts t at e d: I t h i n k i t’ s a re a son a b l e se n ten ce b eca u se M r. Ja n g co n ti n u es to c o n fu s e h is d e s ir e to s ta yin th e U n ite d S t a t e s w ith h is vol u n t ari n ess t o l eave at t h i s t i m e. A n d t h ose are di f ferent t h i n gs. And he ’ s s i m ply t o yi ng w i t h t he c o ur ta nd w i t h the I N S a nd everybod y el se. A n dI th in k th is is th e o n ly w a y to g e t h is a tt e n tio n is to d o th is

. I t h i n k i t s’ s a r eason able sentence. I j us tt hi nk –t he r e ’ s go tt o b e s o m e t hi ng do ne t o w ak e M r . J angup. And w e w i l ls e e i f

g o i ng t o t he penit e nt i ar y ag ai n wi l ldo t hat

. And I t h i n k that m ay be p artof t h e case. I f no t , a nd h e w ant s t o s pe nd h i s t i m e in the pe ni t e nt i ar y, he c e r ta in lyd e s e r v e s th e p u n is h m e n t. Thi s a ppe al e d f

o l l o w e d. I I . DI S CU S S I ON Jan g cha l l en ges t h e di str i ctcourt ’ s deci si on t o revoke h i s s u pervi sed
r e l e as e o n a num be ro f g r o unds

. W i t h r e s pe c tt o t he f i ndi ng t hathe v i o l at e d t he
s pe c i alc o ndi t i o n o f

hi s r e l e ase, Jangc o nt e nds t hathi s i nt e r vi e w w i t h t he K o r e an c o ns ul at e c o ns t i t ut e d an “ i nt e r nat i o nal” i m m i gr at i o n pr o c e dur e fal l i ng b e y o n dth e s c o p e o f th e co n d itio n ’ s re q u ir e m e n t t h a t h e co m p lyw ith a ll i m m i grati on regul ati on s an d l aw s. A l t erna t ivel y, h e con t en ds t h at h e com pl i ed
w i t h t he s pe c i alc o ndi t i o n b y c and i dly ans w e r i ng t he c o ns ul at e ’ s q ue s t i on s; he al s o c o nt e nds t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur terred t o the e xt e ntt hati tc o ns t r ue d t he
s pe c i alc o ndi t i o n t o r e quir e t hathe l i e t o t he c o ns ul at e . Fi nall y, J angc o nt e nds t hatt he e vi de nc e i s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s upp ortthe di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s f i ndi ng t hathe vi ol ated t h e m a n da t ory condit i on of hi s r el ease t h at he not c om m i tan ot h er federal , st ate, or l ocalcr i m e.N o. 08- 10616

5 I n or dert o r evo ke pr obat i on, a di st r i c tc our tm ustonl y “f i nd[] b y a prepon d e ra n ce of t h e evi den ce t h at t h e defen da n tvi ol ated a cond i t i on of sup ervi sed rel ease. ” 18 U

. S

. C

. § 358 3( e) ( 3)

. “ [R ] evocati on of probati on does not
r e q u ir e p r o o f s u ffic ie n t t o s u s ta in acr im in a l co n v ic tio n . A ll th a t is re q u ir e dis
e no ugh e v i d e nc e , withi n t he s ound j udi c i aldi sc r et i on, t o s at i sf y t he di st r i c tj udge th a t th e c o n d u c t of th e p r o b a tio n e r h a s n o t m e t th e c o n d itio n s o f p r o b a tio n .” Un i t ed S t ate s v. G arza , 484 F

. 2d 88, 89 ( 5th C i r. 197 3) . B e ca u se t h e rec ord
e vi de nc e he r e s at i s f

i e s t hats t and ar d a s t o t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s f i ndi ng t hatJ ang vi ol at ed t he m andat or y c ondi t i on of hi s r el eas e, w e need notaddr es s al t er nat ive g r o u n d s fo r th e d is tr ic t co u r t’s o r d e r o f r e v o c a tio n . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Tu rner , 74 1 F. 2d 6 9 6 , 6 9 8 ( 5 t h Ci r . 1 9 8 4 ) ( “W h e r e t h e r e i s a n a d e q u a t e b a s i s f o rt he di st ri ctcourt ’ s d i scr et i on ary act i on or revoki n g proba t i on , t h e revi ew i n g court need no tdec i de a c l ai m of er r or as t o ot her gr ounds t hat had bee n advance d as
a ca u se forre v o ca tion .”)

. Al t ho ughJ angfail e d t o c hall e nget he di s t r i c tcourt ’ s f i ndi ng t hathe
v io la te dth e m a n d a to r yco n d itio n o f h is re le a s e b e lo w , h e co n te n d s th a t p la in
erro r rev i ew i s in a p p l i ca b l e in th i s ap p ea lbe ca u se th e g ov ern m en t fa i l ed to i de nt i f y a c r i m e o n whi c h t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s f i ndi ng c o u l d be based

. J ang co r r e c t l y no t e s t hat ne i t he r t he go ve r nm e nt ’ s Pet i t i o n f o r O f fe nde r U n der Su pervi si on nort he di st r i c tc our t ’ s or alf i n d i ng i dent i f

y a spe c i f

i c c r i m e t hat Jang’ s c onductvi ol at ed. Bu tdu ri n g t he hear i ng, age ntSm i t h t es t i f i ed t hat J a n g ’s c o n d u c tv io la t e d8 U .S .C

. § 1 2 5 3 b e c a u s e J a n g ’s a n s w e r s to th e c o n s u la r ’s que s t i o ns c o ns t i t ut e d a“hi ndr anc e ” t o hi s rem ova l

. Age ntSm i t h’ s us e o f t he
w ord “h i n dran ce” w as an obvi ou s r eference t o subsect i on ( a) ( 1) ( C ) , w h i ch m ak es i ta cr i m e f

or an ali en un der a f i n alorder of

rem oval t o “ co n n ive[ ] or conspir e [] , or t ak e[] an y ot h er act i on , desi gn ed t o preven t or h am per or w i t h t h e pu rpose of preven t i n g or ham peri n g t h e al i en ’ s depa rt u re pursu an tt o” a rem oval order. A s suc h, t he go ver nm entadequat ely i dent i f i ed t he basi s f

ori t s al l egat i ons t hatN o. 08- 10616

Jangcontends that the di strict courtdid not explicitlyfin d th at he had lie d to the 1 Koreanofficial s. However, the district court clearlyf ou ndth at Jang was “toying” withthe court, I NS “and everyoneel se.” Thus, the court foun d th at Jang w as di singenuous in his conduct, including his answers to the Ko r ea n official. Jang did not request more specific findings from the court, and he has not shown plain errorinthecourt’s recit ation of its fin din gs. Jang has not articul ated anyappe als til l availableto him that would prevent his

2 deportation , an d his b rief conc edes thathis i mmigrationapp eal s havebe en exhau sted. 6 Jan g vi ol ated t h e m an da t ory condit i on of hi s r el ease. B ecau se Jan g di d n ot cha l l en ge t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s f i n di n g bel ow , w e revi ew onl y f or pl ai n err or. To e s t ab l i s h pl ai n e r r o r , J angm us ts ho w ( 1) t he r e i s pl ai n a nd o bv i o us e r r o r( 2 ) th a t a ffe c ts h is s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts
. Un ited S ta tes v . Co il , 442 F. 3d 912, 91 6 (5 th C ir

. 200 6)

. A n err or i s pl ai n i f i ti s c l ear or obvious. Uni t e d S t at e s v. D uf f aut , 3 1 4 F .3d 2 0 3 , 2 0 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). Ja ng c anno te s t ab l i s h pl ai n e r r o r . At hi s i ni t i al r e vo c at i o n he ar i ng, J ang t ol d the di st ri ctcourtt h at he w ou l d rather be f ree i n K orea t h an i n carcer ated i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates. H e a l so ag reed t o si gn t h e docum en t s necessary t o ef fect h is d e p o r t a t io n . B a s e do n th e s e s t a t e m e n t s , t h e d is t r ic tc o u r ta ll o w e dJ a n g ’s supervi se d r el eas e t o c ont i nue. Thu s, w hi l e r et urni ng t o K or ea m i ghtnothave be e n J ang ’ s i de alc ho i c e , t he r e c o r d s ho w s t hathe m ad e the c al c ul at e d a nd
vo l unt ary de c i s i o n t o c o o pe r at e i n hi s r e t ur n. I n l i ghto f t hi s evi de nc e , t he di st r i c tc our tc oul d r easo n a b l y c onc l ude t hatJang’ s st at em entt o t he c ons ul ar th a t he h a d n ot sign ed h i s trav el certif i ca te vo l u n taril y an dtha t he w i sh ed to 1 pur s ue f

ur t he ra ppe al s “ w as de s i gne d t o pr e ve nto rha m pe r o r [ m ad e ] w i t h t he 2 p u rp o se of p re v e n tin gorh a m p e rin g” h is d e p a rtu re . 8 U .S .C

. § 1 2 5 3 (a )(1)(C ). As s uc h, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no tpl ai nl y e r r o ri n f i ndi ng t hatJangvi o l at e d t he
m a n d a to r yco n d itio n o f h is re le a s e . I I I . C ONC L US I ON F o rt h e s e r e a s o n s , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.