Fatemeh Soltanbakhsh v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 8 9 Fatemeh Soltanbakhsh, No. CV-26-01572-PHX-SHR (JZB) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 Pamela Bondi, et al., 13 Respondents.

14 15 On March 6, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 16 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). On May 6, 2026, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued a Report 17 and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court grant in part and deny in part 18 Petitioner’s Petition. (Doc. 12.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days 19 after being served with a copy of the R&R to file any objections. (Id. at 18.) No objections 20 have been filed. 21 If neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the 22 district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s decision under any specified 23 standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. 24 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (noting a district court need 25 only review a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is 26 made). However, the statute for review of a magistrate judge’s recommendation “does not 27 preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under 28 a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. 1 In this case, the deadline for filing objections has passed. As noted, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to file objections. The 3 Court will adopt the R&R on that basis. See Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 4} 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (declining to substantively review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation because no objections were filed). Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED Magistrate Judge Boyle’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7 12)is ADOPTED. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 9) (Doc. 1) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as discussed in the R&R. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s request for immediate release 1s DENIED. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner shall be provided an individualized bond 13 hearing within SEVEN (7) DAYS of the date this Order is filed. This bond hearing shall 14 comply with the procedural requirements set out in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th 15 Cir. 2011). The government shall bear the burden of proving that Petitioner is a danger or 16 flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. Additionally, the IJ should consider 17 Petitioner’s financial situation and alternative conditions of release. Hernandez v. 18 Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017). In the alternative, the government may release 19 Petitioner under appropriate conditions of release. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner SHALL be provided with adequate notice prior to the hearing. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the government shall file a status report with the 23 Court regarding the bond hearing and whether Petitioner was released within FOURTEEN 24) (14) DAYS of the date this Order is filed. 25 Dated this 29th day of May, 2026. 26 )

228 Aut Scott H. Rash United States District Judge _2-