Two ICE agents are under scrutiny for allegedly providing false testimony following a controversial shooting involving a migrant in Minneapolis. Acting ICE director Todd Lyons acknowledged the officers were placed on administrative leave pending an investigation, emphasizing that lying under oath constitutes a serious federal offense.

Get the latest headlines in your email

The situation originated on January 14 when DHS initially reported a federal officer shot a migrant in the leg after an altercation involving a shovel and broom handle by three migrants. However, the narrative has since unraveled with the discovery of video evidence contradicting the officers' sworn accounts, prompting an investigation by the US Attorney's Office.

The charges against two men, Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna and Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, who were initially accused of attacking the officers, have been dropped. Minnesota's federal prosecutor, Daniel N. Rosen, justified the dismissal by citing "newly discovered evidence" that undermines the initial allegations, ensuring the case cannot be reopened.

Aljorna’s attorney, Frederick Goetz, expressed his delight over the case's dismissal with prejudice, while Robin Wolpert, representing Sosa-Celis, labeled his client a "crime victim" and condemned the severity of the untruthful statements made by the agents.

A third individual, Gabriel Alejandro Hernandez Ledezma, was arrested during the incident and temporarily held at an ICE detention facility before being released by a federal judge. His involvement further complicates the narrative shaped by DHS's initial claims.

Adding to the complexity, the original accounts by DHS indicated a sequence of events involving a car chase with a Venezuelan national, but later revisions revealed inconsistencies, including the alleged attackers being reduced from three to two individuals.

Meanwhile, Tom Homan, Trump's former border czar, announced the cessation of a border enforcement surge in Minnesota, which lasted over two months and resulted in more than 4,000 arrests of undocumented immigrants.

The unfolding scenario exemplifies the challenges within immigration enforcement and raises questions about accountability and transparency. This controversy further emphasizes the delicate nature of operations conducted by ICE and the importance of accurate reporting.

Key Takeaways

• ICE agents face investigation for false testimony in a shooting case.

• Dismissed charges highlight evidence inconsistencies.

• Significant arrest campaign in Minnesota concluded amid scrutiny.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

  Adapted by ASEAN Now · Source · 13 Feb 2026

View full article

So, the BBC article is alleging that the officers' testimony didn't match the video.

According to ICE acting director Todd Lyons, the two immigration officers appeared to have provided "inaccurate testimony".

Consequently, the charges against Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna and Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis have been dropped.

Meanwhile, the two immigration officers have been placed on Administrative Leave pending an internal investigation.

How "inaccurate" their sworn testimony was will determine if their employment is terminated and if they then face criminal prosecution.

One has to suggest that, in light of this, the comments by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about an agent being "beat up" and lucky "that he made it out alive" might also be somewhat inaccurate.

The real scandal here isn't just that the two officers may have provided "inaccurate testimony". It's that the DHS and politicians who push the "insurrection" narrative, without waiting for the facts, continue to do so with impunity.

2 hours ago, ASEAN NOW News said:

Gabriel Alejandro Hernandez Ledezma

why do these guys all use 4 names?

that should be illegal right there.

6 minutes ago, Jim Waldron said:

It's that the DHS and politicians who push the "insurrection" narrative, without waiting for the facts, continue to do so with impunity.

Yes, it is insurrection. Walz and the other guy act like they have seperated from the US and are running their own country.

Even if a few officers behave badly, it doesn't mean you have the right to block all of them. Just prosecute the cops who stepped out of line.

If the evidence proves they lied, fire their butts.

But don't pretend it's unprecedented to have cops and agents overstep and then fib to cover it up. There's always been bad apples.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

If the evidence proves they lied, fire their butts.

But don't pretend it's unprecedented to have cops and agents overstep and then fib to cover it up. There's always been bad apples.

And without vetting and the free for all they are having, there will be many more bad apples in ICE. Even more so, since the executive comes to their defence without knowing any facts

9 minutes ago, stevenl said:

And without vetting and the free for all they are having, there will be many more bad apples in ICE. Even more so, since the executive comes to their defence without knowing any facts

Of course they had to ramp up fast. Probably too fast to properly vet and train all their recruits. That's what happens when you let 10-20 million unvetted illegals across the border, and the people vote to get rid of them. What is that saying about omelets and eggs?

On balance, I'd bet that the 20% drop in the US murder rate in 2025 far exceeds the few tragedies we've seen to date when trained activists deliberately tried to provoke reactions from ICE agents. And a few of them FAFO.

Edit: Personally, I blame whoever trained, motivated, incited, and probably paid them to FAFO. That blood is on their hands.

As if we didn't already know.

2 hours ago, impulse said:

If the evidence proves they lied, fire their butts.

But don't pretend it's unprecedented to have cops and agents overstep and then fib to cover it up. There's always been bad apples.

Ya know, the immigrants aren't granted a court hearing, why should the agents?

Big strong brutes...shovel, broom-handles! Oh, my!

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

why do these guys all use 4 names?

that should be illegal right there.

Save the Effing Frogs!

This is a huge black eye for ICE. Why? The case was dismissed 'with prejudice'. That's always a big embarrassment for any prosecution--it means you totally and completely screwed-up--and all of the public can see you screwed up badly. There's no hiding.

'With prejudice' means the case was so bad, the ICE agents lied and were so awful, that the prosecution not only had to drop the case but also had to admit publically that they will NEVER bring these same charges again against the innocent person they charged. They can never re-file the case, it's permanently closed

But, they can, and should, swiftly bring criminal charges against the lying ICE agents and send them to jail, especially the one who shot the victim. While they're at it, how's the case going against the ICE agents who beat up and gave a detainee 8 serious skull fractures and then lied and said the detainee ran himself against the wall? They can all serve in the same jail cell, along with all the other ICE agents who have been breaking the law and lying left and right.

As much as I support ICE and the very difficult job they are doing under trying circumstances, this kind of action helps nobody. Federal officers have a duty to follow the rules. Even more so when the entire system is being attacked by collaborators with treasonous politicians.

If these officers can't uphold their duty with integrity, they need to be punished. If they misrepresented the facts in order to hide guilt, that is unacceptable by anyone's standards. They deserve their day in court, but the Trump administration needs to make it crystal clear that law enforcement is going to be held to the highest standards. And if they are guilty, the punishment needs to be enough to stop this kind of behavior. And any officer who can't accept that needs to resign.

Most ICE agents are good people. We don't need a few bad ones tarnishing the entire force.

3 hours ago, uncletiger said:

They deserve their day in court, but the Trump administration needs to make it crystal clear that law enforcement is going to be held to the highest standards

That would require both law enforcement and administration of the highest standards. Both are not, far from.