Soltanbakhsh v. Bondi 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Fatemeh Soltanbakhsh,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-01572-PHX-SHR (JZB)
ORDER
On March 6, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). On May 6, 2026, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued a Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court grant in part and deny in part
Petitioner’s Petition. (Doc. 12.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days
after being served with a copy of the R&R to file any objections. (Id. at 18.) No objections
have been filed.
If neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s decision under any specified
standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (noting a district court need
only review a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is
made). However, the statute for review of a magistrate judge’s recommendation “does not
preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under
a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.
Case 2:26-cv-01572-SHR Document 14 Filed 05/29/26 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
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
Court will adopt the R&R on that basis. See Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,
1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (declining to substantively review the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation because no objections were filed). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED Magistrate Judge Boyle’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.
12) is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Doc. 1) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as discussed in the R&R.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s request for immediate release is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner shall be provided an individualized bond
hearing within SEVEN (7) DAYS of the date this Order is filed. This bond hearing shall
comply with the procedural requirements set out in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th
Cir. 2011). The government shall bear the burden of proving that Petitioner is a danger or
flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. Additionally, the IJ should consider
Petitioner’s financial situation and alternative conditions of release. Hernandez v.
Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017). In the alternative, the government may release
Petitioner under appropriate conditions of release.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner SHALL be provided with adequate
notice prior to the hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the government shall file a status report with the
Court regarding the bond hearing and whether Petitioner was released within FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS of the date this Order is filed.
Dated this 29th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-01572-SHR Document 14 Filed 05/29/26 Page 2 of 2