ICE Agents Under Investigation for Alleged False Testimony in Minneapolis Shooting

Published 13 February 2026

Highlights

• Two ICE agents are under investigation for potentially lying under oath about a shooting incident in Minneapolis involving Venezuelan migrants.
• Video evidence contradicts the officers' sworn testimony, prompting an internal investigation and administrative leave for the agents.
• Charges against Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna and Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, initially accused of assaulting the officers, have been dropped due to new evidence.
• The incident highlights concerns over the use of force by federal immigration agents and the integrity of their testimonies.
• The U.S. attorney's office is actively investigating, and the ICE agents could face termination and criminal charges.

3. Rewritten Article

Headline: ICE Agents Under Investigation for Alleged False Testimony in Minneapolis Shooting

Federal authorities have launched a criminal investigation into two Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents accused of providing false testimony regarding a shooting incident in Minneapolis. The agents, whose identities remain undisclosed, are on administrative leave as the investigation unfolds, according to ICE acting director Todd Lyons.

The controversy centers around a January 14 incident involving Venezuelan nationals Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna and Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis. Initially, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claimed that a federal officer shot Sosa-Celis in the leg after being attacked with a shovel and broom handle by the two men. However, video evidence has since emerged, contradicting these allegations and leading to the dismissal of charges against the men.

Lyons emphasized the seriousness of the situation, stating, "Lying under oath is a serious federal offense." He added that the U.S. attorney's office is actively pursuing the matter, and the agents could face termination and criminal prosecution if found guilty.

The case has drawn attention to the broader issue of accountability within federal immigration enforcement. The U.S. attorney for the district of Minnesota, Daniel N. Rosen, filed a motion to dismiss the charges against Aljorna and Sosa-Celis, citing "newly discovered evidence" that undermines the original allegations. This decision follows a series of high-profile incidents where video evidence has challenged the official narratives provided by federal agents.

Aljorna and Sosa-Celis, who faced the possibility of years in federal prison, expressed relief at the dismissal. Their attorney, Brian D. Clark, stated, "The charges against them were based on lies by an ICE agent." The incident has sparked discussions about the use of force by immigration officers and the reliability of their testimonies.

4. Scenario Analysis

The investigation into the ICE agents' conduct could lead to significant legal and political ramifications. If the agents are found guilty of perjury, it may prompt calls for increased oversight and transparency within federal immigration enforcement agencies. Legal experts suggest that this case could set a precedent for how similar incidents are handled in the future, potentially leading to reforms aimed at ensuring accountability.

Moreover, the dismissal of charges against Aljorna and Sosa-Celis raises questions about the treatment of migrants within the U.S. legal system. As the investigation continues, it remains to be seen how these developments will impact public perception of immigration enforcement and the broader debate over immigration policy in the United States.

Federal authorities have launched a criminal investigation into two Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents accused of providing false testimony regarding a shooting incident in Minneapolis. The agents, whose identities remain undisclosed, are on administrative leave as the investigation unfolds, according to ICE acting director Todd Lyons.

The controversy centers around a January 14 incident involving Venezuelan nationals Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna and Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis. Initially, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claimed that a federal officer shot Sosa-Celis in the leg after being attacked with a shovel and broom handle by the two men. However, video evidence has since emerged, contradicting these allegations and leading to the dismissal of charges against the men.

Lyons emphasized the seriousness of the situation, stating, "Lying under oath is a serious federal offense." He added that the U.S. attorney's office is actively pursuing the matter, and the agents could face termination and criminal prosecution if found guilty.

The case has drawn attention to the broader issue of accountability within federal immigration enforcement. The U.S. attorney for the district of Minnesota, Daniel N. Rosen, filed a motion to dismiss the charges against Aljorna and Sosa-Celis, citing "newly discovered evidence" that undermines the original allegations. This decision follows a series of high-profile incidents where video evidence has challenged the official narratives provided by federal agents.

Aljorna and Sosa-Celis, who faced the possibility of years in federal prison, expressed relief at the dismissal. Their attorney, Brian D. Clark, stated, "The charges against them were based on lies by an ICE agent." The incident has sparked discussions about the use of force by immigration officers and the reliability of their testimonies.

What this might mean

The investigation into the ICE agents' conduct could lead to significant legal and political ramifications. If the agents are found guilty of perjury, it may prompt calls for increased oversight and transparency within federal immigration enforcement agencies. Legal experts suggest that this case could set a precedent for how similar incidents are handled in the future, potentially leading to reforms aimed at ensuring accountability.

Moreover, the dismissal of charges against Aljorna and Sosa-Celis raises questions about the treatment of migrants within the U.S. legal system. As the investigation continues, it remains to be seen how these developments will impact public perception of immigration enforcement and the broader debate over immigration policy in the United States.