Federal Prosecutors Charge ICE Agent With False Statements in Minnesota Shooting Case
The case tests whether federal law enforcement officers can face criminal accountability for conduct during immigration enforcement operations, a question that has produced conflicting outcomes...
A federal grand jury has charged a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer with making false statements to federal investigators in connection with a January 2026 shooting that wounded a Venezuelan immigrant during an immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota, according to a report by the Associated Press published September 3, 2026.
The officer, identified as Christian Castro, is accused of shooting Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the thigh on January 14, 2026, during what the Trump administration described as part of its early-term immigration enforcement crackdown. The federal charges against Castro remain under seal, meaning the specific count language and charging document are not yet publicly available. The Associated Press reported the charge as making false statements to federal investigators, a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison per count.
The federal case runs parallel to a separate state-level proceeding. Castro faces state criminal charges filed by Minnesota authorities, according to the Washington Examiner, which first reported the federal charges. The state of Texas, where Castro is based, declined to extradite him to Minnesota to face those state charges, a decision that placed the case in a legal posture where federal prosecutors stepped in with their own filing.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has not publicly explained the basis for declining the Minnesota extradition request. The legal authority for a governor to decline extradition is narrow. Under the Extradition Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, which Texas has adopted, governors are generally required to extradite individuals charged with crimes in another state. Legal challenges to extradition refusals are possible in federal court, and it is not publicly known as of this publication whether Minnesota has pursued such a challenge. The state court record in Minnesota would contain any filings on that question.
The January 14 incident occurred during a period of intensified federal immigration enforcement activity that followed President Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2025, and subsequent executive orders directing federal agencies to prioritize immigration arrests. Administration officials have not commented publicly on the criminal charges against Castro.
ICE has not issued a statement on the charges, and it is unknown whether Castro remains employed by the agency, on administrative leave, or has been separated from service. An ICE personnel action would typically not be a public record unless disclosed voluntarily or through a Freedom of Information Act response. A FOIA request to ICE or the Department of Homeland Security would be the mechanism to obtain that information.
The use of a false statements charge, rather than a charge directly tied to the shooting itself such as excessive force or deprivation of civil rights under 18 U.S.C. Section 242, is a prosecutorial approach with historical precedent in federal law enforcement misconduct cases. Federal prosecutors have employed false statements charges in cases where the underlying conduct is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt but where investigators can document specific inaccurate statements made during an official inquiry. The charging document, once unsealed, would identify exactly which statements prosecutors allege were false.
Sosa-Celis, who was shot in the thigh, survived the January 14 incident. His current immigration status and the status of any civil claims he may have filed are not known from available public records. A civil complaint, if filed in federal district court, would be publicly accessible through the federal PACER court records system.
The case has drawn attention to a broader policy dispute between Minnesota and the Trump administration over immigration enforcement cooperation. Minnesota is among states that have enacted or maintained policies limiting state and local cooperation with federal immigration detainer requests. The interplay between those policies and the January enforcement operation has not been adjudicated in a public proceeding as of this report.
What remains unknown includes the full text of the sealed federal indictment or information against Castro, the specific statements prosecutors allege were false, whether the Department of Justice authorized the federal prosecution independently or in coordination with the Minnesota state attorney general's office, and whether ICE has taken any internal disciplinary action. The federal court docket in the relevant district, once the charges are unsealed, would be the primary public record answering those questions.