Federal criminal probe examines whether ICE officers lied under oath about Minneapolis shooting of Venezuelan man

Justice Department reviews sworn accounts after new video evidence emerges

Federal authorities have opened a criminal investigation into whether two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers made false statements under oath about a January shooting in Minneapolis that left a Venezuelan man wounded. The inquiry centers on the officers’ descriptions of a confrontation that preceded a single gunshot and the subsequent felony assault case brought against two Venezuelan men.

The shooting occurred on Jan. 14, 2026, in north Minneapolis during an immigration enforcement encounter that began as a traffic stop and escalated into a foot pursuit and struggle outside a residence. The man who was shot, Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, was wounded in the leg and transported for medical treatment. A second Venezuelan man, Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna, was arrested after the incident and later faced felony accusations alongside Sosa-Celis.

Assault charges dismissed “with prejudice” after evidentiary conflict

On Feb. 13, 2026, a federal judge in Minneapolis dismissed felony assault charges against Sosa-Celis and Aljorna with prejudice, meaning the charges cannot be refiled. The dismissal followed the government’s notice that newly obtained evidence was materially inconsistent with allegations previously presented in court filings and sworn testimony.

The earlier account alleged that an officer was attacked with objects described as a shovel and a broom handle, and that the shooting was a defensive response during an ambush. More recently disclosed video evidence and witness information did not support key elements of that narrative, raising questions about whether the use of force was justified under the circumstances described in court.

Third man’s detention becomes part of the scrutiny

The episode also drew attention to the detention of a third man, Gabriel Alejandro Hernandez Ledezma, who was taken into custody in the aftermath. A court later ordered his release. Attorneys for the Venezuelan men have argued that the detention affected the availability of witnesses and contributed to an incomplete or inaccurate early record of what happened.

What investigators are likely to examine next

The criminal probe is expected to focus on whether statements made by federal officers in sworn documents or courtroom proceedings were knowingly false or misleading. Investigators typically compare:

• Officer reports and sworn declarations
• Video evidence and timelines of movement at the scene
• Eyewitness statements and consistency across accounts
• Physical evidence collected during searches following the incident

The central question is not only what occurred during the confrontation, but whether official accounts accurately reflected it at the time they were presented to the court.

The two officers involved have been placed on administrative leave while the investigation proceeds. If prosecutors determine that false statements were made intentionally in a federal matter, potential outcomes can include termination and criminal charges.

The case has intensified scrutiny of federal immigration enforcement activity in the Minneapolis area, particularly when uses of force and subsequent criminal charges depend heavily on officer narratives later tested against video and independent witness evidence.