By This Hour World News Desk
Wilber Rafael Garces Perez, a 28-year-old Venezuelan asylum seeker who was shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in Austin, Texas, has been charged in federal court with assaulting, resisting and impeding a federal officer. The charge follows a September 20 encounter that left Perez wounded and in immigration detention, while opening a separate legal dispute over the events immediately before an officer fired.
The federal allegation is that Perez struck an ICE officer with the side-view mirror of his car and later tried to drive into that officer during a brief pursuit. Perez contests that account. He told federal investigators that a law-enforcement SUV hit his vehicle, causing it to spin, and that the officer then shot him in the back. The two versions describe fundamentally different sequences of events and assign responsibility for the confrontation in opposing ways.
The case combines a criminal charge, an unresolved immigration matter and a dispute over medical treatment. Perez has remained in detention in south Texas since the shooting, his lawyer says, while his legal team seeks to prevent his removal from the United States. The government’s account also says that officers had identified him as subject to a final order of removal before the encounter escalated.
A delivery stop became a confrontation
The federal complaint places the beginning of the episode near a shopping centre in Austin, where Perez was making a DoorDash delivery. It says immigration officers noticed his vehicle with emergency lights on and checked its registration. The officers then determined that the vehicle was registered to Perez and that he was subject to a final order of removal.
That account matters because it sets out why ICE officers approached him and frames the encounter as an immigration-enforcement stop before it became a criminal investigation. It does not, by itself, resolve the later dispute over driving, contact between vehicles, or the decision to use a firearm.
According to the complaint, Perez gave the officers his driver’s licence through a partially opened window but did not leave the vehicle. He asked them to wait for his wife so she could collect the car. The reported description of that initial interaction characterizes it as calm rather than confrontational. That description makes the alleged change in the encounter especially central to the prosecution’s theory.
The complaint alleges that Perez then shut his window and drove away, with his driver’s-side mirror striking an officer in the torso. It says the officer pursued him and later alleged that Perez attempted to drive into him. Prosecutors say that alleged act prompted the officer to shoot. The charge of assaulting, resisting and impeding a federal officer arises from that account, not merely from the fact that Perez left the initial stop.
A charge is an accusation, not a finding of guilt. Perez will have the opportunity to challenge the government’s evidence and its account of intent, sequence and force in federal proceedings. The supplied report says a conviction could carry a prison term of up to 20 years, but it does not identify the precise statutory provision or explain how that maximum would apply to the charge in Perez’s particular case. The potential penalty should therefore be read as a reported ceiling, not as a prediction of any sentence.
Two accounts diverge over the shooting
The decisive factual disagreement concerns what happened after Perez drove away. The officer’s allegation, as summarized in the federal complaint, is that Perez used or tried to use his car against him. Perez’s statement to investigators describes the episode differently: he said that after a short chase, a law-enforcement SUV struck his car and sent it spinning before the officer shot him.
Those accounts cannot both accurately describe the critical moments in the same way. Under the government’s version, the shooting followed a perceived attempt to drive into an officer. Under Perez’s version, a law-enforcement vehicle caused the loss of control and the shooting followed while he was in a position that did not match the claimed threat. The difference is material both to the criminal allegation and to any assessment of the officer’s use of force.
The available account does not provide publicly released footage of the incident itself. It says the complaint relies on body-camera material from one of the two ICE officers involved. The other officer was not wearing a body camera, according to the affidavit described in the report. Footage from a single officer, if later disclosed, could be important, but the supplied material does not state what it shows or whether it captures the full encounter.
Videos showing the aftermath have circulated online, the report says, with Perez injured in his car. Aftermath footage may establish that a shooting occurred and show conditions after it, but it cannot on its own settle the contested actions that preceded the gunfire. Nor does the supplied material provide independent forensic evidence, a full record of vehicle damage, a public video of the pursuit, or accounts from additional witnesses.
For now, the public case rests on a complaint recounting the officer’s allegation and an affidavit containing Perez’s differing statement. That makes careful language essential. The government alleges that Perez assaulted an officer; Perez denies the central factual premise by saying law enforcement struck his vehicle before he was shot. Neither account has been established in a trial on the information available here.
Detention, injury and removal proceed alongside the charge
Perez’s physical condition has become a second point of dispute. His lawyer says he has a fractured clavicle and that the bullet remains lodged in his body. The lawyer has argued that he could face serious complications without surgery, including infection or permanent harm. The Department of Homeland Security, by contrast, says he is receiving adequate medical care.
The supplied record does not include medical records, an independent clinical assessment, a treatment plan, or a timetable for any surgery. It therefore cannot determine whether the care provided is sufficient, whether surgery is medically required, or how quickly treatment must occur. What is clear from the competing positions is that Perez’s detention has not separated the legal process from the practical consequences of his injury.
His immigration status is likewise central but not fully explained by the available information. Perez’s legal team is trying to halt his removal from the country. The report says he entered the United States in 2024 through CBP One, a programme that enabled asylum seekers to make appointments with authorities at the US-Mexico border. His lawyer maintains that he was seeking asylum and held a valid work permit.
The government position described in the complaint is that Perez was already subject to a final removal order. His lawyer has said that order followed a missed immigration-court hearing because notice went to an old address. The supplied claims do not provide the underlying immigration documents, the notice record, or a ruling on that explanation. As a result, the record supports only that the removal order is alleged by the government and is being contested through Perez’s legal efforts.
These parallel proceedings give the case unusually high stakes for Perez. A federal criminal prosecution concerns the alleged conduct during the Austin encounter. Immigration proceedings concern whether he may remain in the United States. Medical care affects his immediate wellbeing while he is detained. Each track can move on its own timetable, though all are shaped by the same disputed encounter and the same incomplete public record.
The evidence record has not yet been tested publicly
The federal charge places prosecutors under an obligation to prove their allegation in court, while Perez’s lawyers can test the reliability and context of the officer’s account. Questions likely to matter include the timing and direction of the vehicles, whether the mirror made contact as alleged, the nature of any pursuit, what caused Perez’s car to spin, and what the officer could see when he fired.
The available report does not answer those questions. It also does not set out the full contents of the body-camera recording, identify other evidence gathered by investigators, or provide a judicial finding on the facts. The absence of publicly available footage of the central event leaves a significant gap between the competing accounts and any definitive public reconstruction.
Perez remains accused, rather than convicted, of assaulting, resisting and impeding a federal officer. His injury does not by itself disprove the allegation, and the charge does not by itself validate every element of the government’s narrative. The criminal case, the immigration challenge and the dispute over treatment must be assessed on their separate records.
This report has not been independently corroborated. It is based on the supplied account of the federal complaint, Perez’s statement to investigators, claims by his lawyer and the Department of Homeland Security’s response; the underlying evidence needed to resolve their conflicting versions has not been provided here.
Several decisions remain ahead
Federal court will determine how the assault case proceeds and whether the government can substantiate its allegations. Separately, Perez’s lawyers are seeking to stop his removal, placing his immigration status before an immigration judge. The supplied report indicates that the immigration question is distinct from the criminal charge, even though both arise against the background of the same enforcement encounter.
Disclosure or public review of the body-camera material could narrow the disagreement, but no such release is established in the supplied material. Medical documentation could also clarify the disagreement over his treatment, yet none is included. Until more evidence is tested, the case is defined less by settled facts than by a grave allegation, a serious injury and two irreconcilable narratives of why an ICE officer opened fire.
For further context on this subject, see Manchester City case reaches reported verdict after years of financial-rule disputes.
Reporting notes
What is confirmed: The complaint alleges vehicle contact and an attempted assault; Perez says a law-enforcement SUV struck his car before he was shot.
Why this matters: The charge, shooting, detention and removal case turn on sharply conflicting accounts of the encounter.
What remains unclear: No public footage of the shooting is described, and the supplied record does not resolve the competing accounts or the medical-care dispute. This report is based on one source and has not been independently corroborated.
