An ICE officer shot and wounded a 28-year-old Venezuelan man subject to a final deportation order during a traffic stop in Austin, Texas, triggering angry protests and a political clash over who should investigate the incident.
The Department of Homeland Security confirmed on Sunday afternoon that the officer fired on the man, identified as Wilber Rafael Garces Perez, striking him once in the torso. Garces Perez was taken to a local trauma center in serious but stable condition. Within hours, he was transferred to ICE custody, without his wife or his immigration attorney being notified, AP News reported.
The shooting happened under a highway overpass on Austin's north side on September 20. Austin Police Chief Lisa Davis told reporters that preliminary information pointed to a brief foot pursuit before the shot was fired, though ICE officials had not confirmed that account. An immigration judge had previously issued a final order of removal against Garces Perez.
A passerby's video circulated on social media shortly after the incident. It appeared to show an ICE vehicle positioned nose-to-nose with another car. An officer exits and approaches the passenger side window. Multiple gunshots are audible. The driver then attempts to pull away but stops before reaching the next intersection.
A second video, shot from the opposite side, showed the driver of a heavily damaged blue sedan sitting in his seat while the ICE officer walked back toward the vehicle and appeared to call for medical assistance. Breitbart Texas reported what appeared to be two bullet holes visible in the sedan's rear passenger window.
Austin City Councilman Mike Siefel alleged publicly that the ICE officer fired five times through the car's windshield. Chief Davis pushed back on that claim, characterizing it as false based on preliminary findings. The exact number of shots the officer fired has not been officially confirmed, and it remains unclear whether the officer was wearing a body camera.
Demonstrators gathered at the scene within minutes of the shooting. Reporter Nick Sortor reported that Texas Department of Public Safety troopers responded and deployed pepper spray to maintain control. Fox News reported that authorities also used tear gas to disperse the growing crowd.
The protests added immediate political pressure. Austin Mayor Kirk Watson called for city police involvement in the investigation, arguing ICE should not be left to investigate the incident on its own.
Watson did not hold back his frustration. In remarks reported by the New York Post, the mayor said:
"I'm very angry about this. [But] I'm not surprised at all. It's happened in other cities with the nature of ICE and the way ICE is doing its business these days and the chaos that we see it performing and fomenting."
That framing, blaming ICE for "chaos", is worth examining against the facts available so far. The man who was shot had a final deportation order. He was, by the government's own legal process, someone a judge had already determined should be removed from the country. ICE officers were carrying out that order. Whatever questions remain about the use of force, the enforcement action itself was not rogue freelancing. It was the law.
Davis struck a more measured tone than the mayor, telling reporters:
"The city of Austin deserves answers. We're going to get all those questions answered, and we'll be as transparent as we can be."
She also acknowledged how little was confirmed at that point. On the foot pursuit, she said:
"From what I'm hearing, there was a small foot pursuit. But again, this is all very preliminary."
The list of unanswered questions is long. No official has confirmed how many rounds were fired. ICE has not confirmed whether a foot pursuit occurred. The officer's name has not been released. Whether body camera footage exists is unknown. The FBI and Texas Rangers are expected to investigate, but neither agency had formally confirmed that as of Sunday.
One detail stands out in the aftermath. The New York Post reported that Garces Perez's immigration attorney and wife were blocked from seeing him after the shooting. Hours later, he was transferred from the hospital into ICE custody. His wife was not informed.
Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch, identified as Garces Perez's attorney, told AP News bluntly: "No one bothered to update her." His exact location after the transfer remained unclear.
Watson raised the possibility that the ICE officer involved might leave the jurisdiction. "We do not know that," the mayor said. "But my hope would be that an agent that's involved in an officer-involved shooting would not leave the city. Certainly not leave the state."
Texas Rep. Greg Casar also demanded a formal investigation into the shooting.
Much of the political reaction in Austin treated the shooting as though it happened in a vacuum, an act of aggression against an unarmed motorist. But the legal context matters. Garces Perez had been ordered removed by an immigration judge. That order is the product of a legal proceeding, not a bureaucratic whim. ICE officers attempting to enforce it were doing what the law requires.
None of that settles the use-of-force question. If the officer fired without justification, the investigation should say so. If body camera footage exists, the public deserves to see it. If Councilman Siefel's claims about five shots through the windshield are false, as Chief Davis indicated, then an elected official spread misinformation that inflamed an already volatile scene. That deserves scrutiny, too.
But the rush to frame every ICE enforcement action as an outrage, before the facts are in, before investigators have finished their work, tells its own story about where Austin's political leadership stands. The protests were instantaneous. The demands for investigation came within hours. The assumption that ICE was in the wrong arrived before anyone could confirm how many shots were fired or whether a pursuit even happened.
When enforcing a lawful deportation order triggers street protests and mayoral condemnation before sundown, the question is no longer just about one officer's conduct. It is about whether a city's leaders believe immigration law should be enforced at all.
