ICE agent federally charged with lying over shooting of a Venezuelan immigrant

Federal False-Statement Indictment Marks Unprecedented Step Against ICE Officer in Immigration Shooting Case

Earthguardiansonline.com – For the first time in the history of nationwide immigration enforcement operations, the Department of Justice has moved to criminally charge a federal agent for conduct carried out while on duty. ICE officer Christian Castro now faces multiple counts of making false statements under federal law, a development that signals a sharp departure from the department’s historical reluctance to pursue its own officers in high-profile enforcement actions.

Castro surrendered to authorities on Thursday and was scheduled to make his initial court appearance the following Friday. The specific counts have not yet been made public, though a person with direct knowledge of the case confirmed the charges center on sworn statements Castro gave after the incident. The department, meanwhile, has not finalized a decision on whether to layer additional civil-rights counts onto the indictment.

The Shooting and Its Aftermath

The incident traces back to an earlier point in the year, when ICE officers attempted to stop a truck registered to an undocumented immigrant named Joffre Barrera. Behind the wheel was Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna, a DoorDash delivery driver and cousin of the truck’s owner. Aljorna drove away from the officers rather than pull over. He then abandoned the vehicle and ran on foot, only to be tackled by an agent a short distance from the apartment of his cousin, 24-year-old Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan immigrant.

Sosa-Celis, who was inside the apartment, called out to Aljorna to come through the door. Once both men were behind the closed entryway, a single shot fired. Sosa-Celis was struck in the leg through the door. He later described the moment in a Facebook livestream recorded from a hospital bed:

“I closed the door and as I was locking it, I heard the shot, and that’s when I realized I had been shot in the leg.”

Minnesota state prosecutors, who brought charges against Castro in May, allege the bullet entered the back of Sosa-Celis’ leg through the apartment door. They filed counts of second-degree assault and making a false report. Those state charges remain pending alongside the new federal indictment.

Charges Against the Victim, Then Dropped

In the immediate aftermath, federal prosecutors charged Sosa-Celis and a second man with attacking an ICE officer using a snow shovel and a broom stick. Investigators later reviewed surveillance footage and other material from the scene that contradicted Castro’s account of the confrontation. The charges against both men were subsequently dismissed. Castro and a second agent involved in the operation were placed on administrative leave shortly after.

Former ICE Director Todd Lyons publicly acknowledged that the Justice Department was examining what he described as “untruthful statements” made by the agents. Federal prosecutors also informed the judge overseeing the now-dropped case that the officers had given “false statements” under oath.

The Extradition Tangle

Castro’s custody became entangled in a jurisdictional dispute. He was held in a Texas jail after Minnesota sought his return to face the state charges. The Texas governor declined to immediately approve the extradition, and Castro was released from the facility last week. A federal judge overseeing the matter declined to intervene in the state-versus-state standoff. Castro’s eventual surrender to federal authorities on Thursday resolved the practical question of where he would answer to the new indictment.

Civil-Rights Question and Internal Friction

The most consequential open question is whether the department will add civil-rights counts to the indictment. A federal prosecutor assigned to the case told defense attorneys for Sosa-Celis and other affected parties that department officials had blocked an effort to bring a more serious civil-rights charge connected to the shooting itself. That prosecutor, Matthew Evans, was subsequently fired and placed under investigation for alleged obstruction of a grand jury probe. An automated reply from his departmental email indicated he was “on leave.” Multiple attempts to reach him directly went unanswered.

A person familiar with internal deliberations told CNN that no formal decision on civil-rights charges had been reached as of the latest reporting. The department’s timeline for such decisions has historically been slow. It took nearly a year to bring a civil-rights case against Derek Chauvin in connection with George Floyd’s death, and more than two years before the department charged officers from the Louisiana Metro Police Department linked to the killing of Breonna Taylor. Color-of-law prosecutions, as they are formally classified, routinely span months or years before charges are filed.

Defense and Victim-Side Response

Robin M. Wolpert, attorney for Sosa-Celis, issued a statement addressing the scope of the federal indictment:

“Mr. Castro has been indicted for making false statements. But he made them to cover up the fact that he shot my client through the door of an occupied house without a self-defense justification. Although the evidence strongly supports civil rights charges, the federal government has grossly undercharged this case. Mr. Sosa Celis wants Mr. Castro to be held fully accountable for his crimes.”

CNN attempted to reach a representative for Castro for comment. No response was obtained.

Why This Case Matters Beyond One Agent

The decision to indict a sitting or recently active federal agent for on-duty conduct during immigration enforcement represents a structural shift. Previous episodes of alleged misconduct during large-scale operations have typically been handled through internal agency reviews, administrative leave, or state-level prosecutions brought by local districts. A federal false-statement count, layered on top of state assault charges, places the agent squarely within the department’s own prosecutorial apparatus. Whether civil-rights counts ultimately follow will determine whether this case becomes a template for holding federal enforcement officers criminally accountable under federal law, or whether the department draws the line at perjury-type offenses.