Bolotkanov v. Cantu et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Ibrakhim Bolotkanov,
Petitioner,
v.
John Cantu, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-03025-PHX-KML (JZB)
ORDER
On December 23, 2025, the court granted petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas
corpus and ordered respondents to “provide petitioner a bond redetermination hearing
within ten days or release him from custody under the same conditions that existed before
his detention.” (Doc. 30 at 4.) Respondents opted to provide a bond redetermination
hearing. At that hearing, the immigration judge “found that Petitioner is neither a danger
to the community nor a flight risk” but “set bond in the amount of $17,000.” (Doc. 32 at
2.) The immigration judge allegedly did not “inquire on the record into Petitioner’s ability
to pay the bond amount” and petitioner argues he “lacks the financial ability to post such a
bond.” (Doc. 32 at 2.) The day after the bond redetermination hearing, petitioner filed a
“Motion to Enforce” requesting the court “enforce its December 23, 2025 Order granting
habeas relief by directing Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from custody.”1
1 Shortly after petitioner filed his motion to enforce, respondents filed a “Notice of
Compliance” stating petitioner had posted bond. (Doc. 33 at 1.) That filing prompted
petitioner to file a “Motion to Strike” arguing the “Notice of Compliance” was factually
inaccurate and he had not posted bond. Respondents then filed a “Revised Notice of
Compliance” stating “bond has not in fact been posted or paid.” (Doc. 35 at 1.) Based on
the revised notice, petitioner’s Motion to Strike is denied as moot.
Case 2:25-cv-03025-KML-JZB Document 36 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Doc. 32 at 4-5.)
The court is aware that Ҥ 1226(e) precludes jurisdiction over claims that an IJ,
exercising his statutorily-delegated discretion, set an excessively high bond amount.”
Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 987 (9th Cir. 2017) (simplified). But if petitioner is
arguing “the discretionary [bond] process itself was constitutionally flawed,” that argument
is “cognizable in federal court on habeas because [it fits] comfortably within the scope of
§ 2241.” Id. (simplified). In responding to the motion to enforce respondents must address,
providing all available evidence, whether the immigration judge considered petitioner’s
ability to pay in setting the bond amount. Respondents must also address whether
petitioner’s arguments regarding his bond amount should be brought as a separate petition.
In his reply, petitioner must explain why his current arguments regarding the bond amount
do not qualify as “cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb.”
Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 988 (simplified). Petitioner must also explain why a motion to
enforce in this case is the appropriate mechanism for relief instead of filing a new petition.
IT IS ORDERED no later than January 14, 2026, respondents shall file their
response to the “Motion to Enforce.” Petitioner shall file his reply no later than January
21, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Strike (Doc. 34) is DENIED AS
MOOT.
Dated this 2nd day of January, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-03025-KML-JZB Document 36 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 2