Zhalnin v. Department of Homeland Security

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION
AT COVINGTON

CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-237-DLB

NIKITA ZHALNIN PETITIONER

v. MEMORANDUM ORDER

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., RESPONDENTS

* * * * * * * * * *

I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Nikita Zhalnin’s Motion to Enforce
Judgment (Doc. # 10). For the following reasons, the Court will deny the Motion.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Russia who entered the United States on
October 15, 2024 at the DeConcini port of entry in Nogales, Arizona. (Doc. # 4-1 at 2).
That same day, Petitioner was issued a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) (Doc. # 1-2 at 14) and
was released on parole. On June 12, 2025, Petitioner was served with an I-200 Warrant
for Arrest of Alien (Doc. # 4-3) and was taken into custody. On June 10, 2026, nearly a
year after being taken into custody, DHS terminated Petitioner’s parole. (Doc. # 4-5).
On May 27, 2026, Zhalnin filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. # 1). On July 27, 2026, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion
and Order directing Respondents to immediately release Petitioner, or in the alternative,
provide him with a constitutionally adequate bond hearing. (Doc. # 6 at 7-8). On April
21, 2026, the Immigration Court held a bond hearing for Petitioner. (Doc. # 9 at 1). On
Case: 2:26-cv-00237-DLB Doc #: 11 Filed: 08/14/26 Page: 1 of 4 - Page ID#:
<pageID>

2

July 30, 2026, the court issued its decision, denying bond on the grounds that Petitioner
is a flight risk. (Doc. # 8-1 at 3). On August 3, 2026, finding that Respondents complied
with the Court’s Order, this Court dismissed and struck this case from the Court’s active
docket. (Doc. # 9).
On August 10, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Motion to Enforce Judgment
requesting this Court order his immediate release, or in the alternative, for this Court to
hold its own bond hearing. (Doc. # 10 at 2).
III. ANALYSIS
In his Motion to Enforce, Petitioner argues that he was denied a constitutionally
adequate bond hearing because the IJ failed to place the burden of proof on the
government. (Doc. # 10 at 5). In support, Petitioner claims that: (1) the burden of proof
was announced but never applied; (2) the government offered no evidence; (3) the
duration of Petitioner’s detention was never considered; (4) every adverse finding was
generated by the IJ’s own examination; (5) the denial rested on categorical reasoning;
and (6) the credibility finding was imported from the asylum merits. (Id. at 5-7).
A. This Court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions
As to arguments three through six, Petitioner challenges the substance and
reasoning of the IJ’s decision to deny bond. Specifically, by arguing that the duration of
his detention was not considered, the findings were generated by the IJ’s own
examination, the denial rested on categorical reasoning, and the credibility finding was
imported from the asylum merits, Petitioner is asking this Court to review discretionary
decisions made by the IJ in the course of its bond consideration. The IJ’s decision to
deny bond is a discretionary decision, something this Court lacks jurisdiction to review.
See Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 401 (2019) (noting that § 1226(e) bars review of
Case: 2:26-cv-00237-DLB Doc #: 11 Filed: 08/14/26 Page: 2 of 4 - Page ID#:
<pageID>

3

discretionary applications of § 1226); Hernandez-Gabriel v. Tate, No. 25-cv-5687-H, 2026
WL 161192, at *4 (S.D. Tx. Jan. 20, 2026) (holding that a district court lacked jurisdiction
to consider a petitioner’s challenge to the correctness of an IJ’s determination that the
petitioner posed a flight risk); Perez Sierra v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-18829, 2026 WL 497070,
at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 23, 2026) (“This Court lacks jurisdiction to review any discretionary
determinations underlying an immigration judge’s bond decision, but it can review
whether the bond hearing was fundamentally unfair in violation of this Court’s order.”); cf.
Soto-Medina v. Lynch, No. 1:25-cv-1704, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21,
2026) (holding that § 1226(e) did not bar consideration of a petitioner’s challenge that the
discretionary process of § 1226(a) itself is unconstitutional).
B. The IJ properly applied the burden of proof
Petitioner additionally argues that the IJ failed to conduct a constitutionally
adequate bond hearing because the “burden of proof was announced but never applied”
and the “government offered no evidence at all.” (Doc. # 10 at 5). The Court disagrees.
First, in the order of the IJ, the IJ explicitly acknowledged that this Court ordered
DHS to provide Respondent with a constitutionally adequate bond hearing in which the
government bore the burden of proof. (Doc. # 8-1 at 1-2). The IJ next states that “in
accordance with the U.S. District Court’s Order, a bond hearing was held[.]” (Id.). Given
that the IJ acknowledged that the Court ordered a constitutionally adequate hearing
where the government bore the burden, and then immediately after noted that a hearing
was conducted in accordance with the Court’s Order, the Court concludes that the IJ did
properly place the burden on the government. Moreover, in the transcript of the
proceedings submitted by Petitioner, the IJ explicitly stated that this Court’s Order stated
Case: 2:26-cv-00237-DLB Doc #: 11 Filed: 08/14/26 Page: 3 of 4 - Page ID#:
<pageID>

4

“that the burden is on the Department of Homeland Security” and thus directed DHS to
proceed with its evidence. (See Doc. # 10-6 at 6-7). Accordingly, the Court finds that the
burden of proof was both announced and applied during Petitioner’s bond hearing.
Petitioner additionally claims that the government “offered no evidence at all.”
(Doc. # 10 at 5). However, the government called Petitioner himself as a witness for
direct examination as well as entered a significant closing statement on why it believed
Petitioner to be a flight risk. (Doc. # 10-6 at 7). Petitioner’s testimony was then referenced
repeatedly in the IJ’s order denying bond. (Doc. # 8-1). That the IJ concluded that the
government had met its burden of proof through direct examination testimony and closing
arguments is a discretionary decision. And as this Court concluded supra, it lacks
jurisdiction to review a discretionary decision by an IJ. Therefore, neither of these points
establish that the IJ did not adequately consider whether the government properly met its
burden of proof.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, IT IS SO ORDERED as follows:
(1) Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Judgment (Doc. # 10) is DENIED; and

(2) This matter is hereby DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s active

docket.

This 14th day of August, 2026.

Case: 2:26-cv-00237-DLB Doc #: 11 Filed: 08/14/26 Page: 4 of 4 - Page ID#:
<pageID>