A federal judge has temporarily blocked the deportation of a 28-year-old Venezuelan illegal immigrant who was shot by an ICE officer during an encounter in Austin, Texas, ordering the man to remain in the country for a hearing scheduled for September 30. The order came after the man’s attorney filed a federal lawsuit and posted on Facebook that she had “secured a temporary block on his deportation while his case moves forward.”
The case has become a flashpoint, seized by more than 100 Democratic members of Congress, a progressive Travis County district attorney, and protest organizers in Austin, all demanding the man’s release from ICE custody. Left largely unmentioned by those voices: the man had a final order of removal, was in the country illegally, and was encountered by federal agents doing their job.
The man, Wilber Rafael Garces Perez, was shot over the weekend while reportedly delivering a DoorDash order in North Austin. His attorney, Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch, told Fox News Digital that ICE agents in a truck pursued Perez after he made a U-turn under a highway.
“The truck chased him and sideswiped him again. And the agents came out and shot him in the back of the neck and pulled him out of the car.”
That account comes entirely from Perez’s own lawyer. No body camera footage exists, the unnamed ICE officer was not wearing one at the time. ICE policy reportedly requires every officer to be equipped with a body camera by the end of the month, but the deadline had not yet passed when the shooting occurred.
ICE training records paint a different picture than the one Lincoln-Goldfinch has offered. The officer who fired the shot completed the agency’s 256-hour Deportation Officer Training Program in August 2025 and underwent additional operational and legal instruction through 2026. He scored 99.2 percent on his pistol qualification. His coursework covered use-of-force scenarios, less-lethal tactics involving Tasers, OC spray, and batons, as well as field operations training, warrantless arrests, escort and removal procedures, and the full custody continuum.
The officer also had years of prior law enforcement experience, including service with U.S. Border Patrol. This was not a rogue rookie with a firearm.
Perez, meanwhile, had a final order of removal, meaning a judge had already determined he had no legal basis to remain in the United States. Lincoln-Goldfinch disputes the validity of that order, claiming the removal notice was sent to Perez’s old address even though he had updated his address with the court. That claim has not been independently verified.
The Washington Examiner reported that Perez is being held in federal custody with the bullet still lodged near his spine, as surgeons were unable to safely remove it. Lincoln-Goldfinch said Perez remains in “a lot of pain” and still requires medical care.
The political mobilization around this case has been swift. Rep. Greg Casar, a Democrat from Texas, organized a letter signed by more than 100 members of Congress addressed to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and ICE Director David Venturella. The letter demanded Perez’s release from ICE detention for medical treatment and called on state authorities and law enforcement to preserve all evidence from the shooting.
Casar’s letter framed Perez not as a man with a final removal order but as a victim and witness who must be protected from the very agency that detained him.
“Mr. Garces Perez is a key witness to this shooting, and given ICE’s history of obscuring the facts in similar investigations, he must not be removed.”
That language, “ICE’s history of obscuring the facts”, tells you where this effort is headed. It is not about the facts of this particular encounter. It is about building a broader indictment of immigration enforcement itself.
Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza sent his own letter to Mullin and Venturella, asking that Perez be allowed to remain in the United States pending an investigation into the shooting. Garza’s office has not publicly released the letter’s full contents. The pattern of federal judges intervening in ICE enforcement actions has become a recurring feature of immigration policy disputes.
The Associated Press reported that Perez was returned to a hospital by Monday night after public outcry over his medical condition in detention. Perez reportedly told a Spanish-language interviewer by phone: “I am not doing well due to the gunshot wound, and I have not received the medical attention that I require.”
Protests erupted in Austin on September 20, 2026. Austin Mayor Kirk Watson, as reported by the New York Post, said he was “very angry” and “not surprised at all,” adding that it was the result of “the chaos that we see it performing and fomenting”, referring to ICE operations.
Austin Police Chief Lisa Davis struck a more measured tone, saying the city “deserves answers” and pledging transparency.
But the rush to cast Perez as a sympathetic victim, a DoorDash driver simply doing his job, skips past the threshold question. He had a final order of removal. He was, by legal definition, subject to deportation. ICE agents were executing that order. Whatever happened during the encounter, the agents were not acting on a whim. They were enforcing a court order.
Lincoln-Goldfinch has called ICE officers “over armed, overpaid, undertrained, and violent,” as Breitbart reported. The training records tell a different story: 256 hours of specialized instruction, a near-perfect firearms score, coursework on less-lethal alternatives, and years of prior federal law enforcement experience. “Undertrained” is a talking point, not a fact.
The absence of body camera footage is a legitimate concern. But the solution is faster implementation of ICE’s body camera policy, not the dismantling of enforcement operations. The Fifth Circuit has already moved to limit lower courts from releasing migrants ahead of deportation in other cases, underscoring the tension between judicial intervention and enforcement authority.
On the same Tuesday that Garza and Casar were demanding Perez’s release, DHS released a list of illegal immigrants recently arrested in Texas. The list included individuals arrested for supporting an Islamic State-inspired mass shooting on Election Day 2024, two Mexican citizens wanted for multiple murders in their home country, child sex offenders, and drug dealers.
One entry stood out: a Mexican man arrested after posting a TikTok video in 2025, in Spanish, soliciting the murder of ICE agents and offering a $10,000 reward.
That is the operational environment ICE agents work in. They face threats, evasion, and now political campaigns to criminalize their enforcement of lawful court orders. The timing of the DHS list was no accident, it was a reminder that ICE encounters are not traffic stops in quiet suburbs. They involve people who have been ordered removed from the country, some of whom pose serious public safety risks.
The broader pattern of federal judges blocking executive enforcement actions has become a defining feature of the current political landscape. In case after case, single district judges have inserted themselves into enforcement decisions that affect national policy.
Several facts remain unknown. The name of the ICE officer who fired the shot has not been released. The specific federal court and presiding judge who issued the deportation block have not been identified in public reporting. Fox News Digital reached out to both ICE and DHS for comment; no response has been reported.
The exact sequence of events leading to the shooting, what prompted the initial pursuit, whether Perez attempted to flee, whether the officer perceived a threat, remains unclear. Without body camera footage, the public has only the attorney’s account on one side and ICE’s silence on the other.
Lincoln-Goldfinch’s claim that the removal order was defective, issued after notice went to an old address, has not been independently corroborated. If true, it would raise due process questions. But a disputed mailing address does not transform a man with a removal order into a lawful resident. It means the order might be challengeable in court. That is what courts are for. It does not mean ICE agents were wrong to attempt enforcement.
The judicial tug-of-war over deportation orders has played out repeatedly in recent years, with judges alternately blocking and permitting removals depending on the political temperature of the case.
The September 30 hearing will determine whether the deportation block holds. Lincoln-Goldfinch has vowed to “continue fighting to protect his rights.” More than 100 members of Congress have made clear they want Perez released. The Travis County DA wants an investigation that could target the officer.
None of that changes the underlying reality. Perez entered the country illegally. A judge ordered him removed. ICE agents attempted to carry out that order. The encounter turned violent, and the circumstances remain disputed.
The left wants this case to be a referendum on immigration enforcement. The right should insist it be treated as what it is: a use-of-force incident that deserves a fair investigation, not a political campaign to make ICE agents afraid to do their jobs.
When enforcing a lawful court order becomes a scandal, the law itself is the target.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.