A federal immigration agent has been arrested and charged in connection with a controversial shooting that took place during a major immigration enforcement operation earlier this year, marking one of the rare instances in which a state prosecutor has pursued criminal charges against a federal law enforcement officer.

Christian Castro, a 52-year-old agent with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was taken into custody in Texas on Friday, nearly two weeks after Minnesota prosecutors filed felony charges accusing him of shooting a Venezuelan man during a chaotic encounter in Minneapolis.

Authorities allege Castro shot Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the leg on Jan. 14, 2026, during a period of heightened immigration enforcement activity that drew widespread attention and criticism throughout Minnesota.

The case has quickly become a flashpoint in the ongoing national debate over immigration enforcement, federal authority, and the accountability of law enforcement officers operating under federal jurisdiction.

According to prosecutors, Castro now faces four counts of second-degree assault along with a charge of falsely reporting a crime.

The charges stem from an incident that initially generated conflicting accounts from federal authorities and local investigators.

Minnesota officials allege that the facts uncovered during the investigation differ significantly from the version of events first provided by federal agents.

Investigators with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension traveled to Texas after locating Castro in Harlingen, a city near the southern border.

Authorities said he was arrested Friday morning with assistance from Texas Rangers and was booked into a Texas jail while awaiting extradition proceedings that could return him to Minnesota to face prosecution.

The arrest represents a highly unusual move by state authorities.

Legal experts note that criminal charges against federal law enforcement officers by state prosecutors remain exceptionally rare, particularly when the conduct occurred while the officer was performing official duties.

Castro is now the second federal immigration official charged this year by Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, whose office has taken an aggressive approach toward investigating incidents involving federal agents operating within Minnesota.

Moriarty’s office has argued that state authorities have both the responsibility and the legal authority to pursue criminal accountability when evidence suggests state laws have been violated.

The prosecution has already triggered sharp criticism from federal officials.

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security described the case as politically motivated and argued that any alleged misconduct by Castro should be addressed through federal channels rather than state criminal courts.

The spokesperson characterized the prosecution as a “political stunt” and maintained that disciplinary matters involving federal officers fall under federal jurisdiction.

That position mirrors broader arguments made by federal officials in recent months as tensions have escalated between Minnesota authorities and federal immigration agencies.

The controversy surrounding the shooting traces back to January, when federal immigration operations intensified across several Minnesota communities.

The period became known as Operation Metro Surge, a large-scale enforcement effort involving hundreds of federal agents conducting immigration-related investigations and arrests throughout the region.

The operation sparked protests and criticism from immigrant advocacy organizations, civil rights groups, and local elected officials.

During those weeks, several violent confrontations involving federal agents occurred, attracting significant media attention.

The shooting involving Sosa-Celis became one of the most closely scrutinized incidents.

According to prosecutors, Sosa-Celis was shot after Castro pursued him near a residence in Minneapolis.

Early accounts from federal authorities claimed that Castro and other agents had been attacked by multiple individuals armed with a shovel and that the use of force was justified as self-defense.

However, investigators later reached different conclusions.

According to court filings, evidence gathered by state investigators suggested Castro was alone outside the residence at the time of the shooting and that he fired his weapon through the front door of the home.

One of the bullets struck Sosa-Celis in the leg.

The injury was not fatal, but the incident immediately raised questions about the circumstances leading up to the shooting.

As investigators continued reviewing witness statements, physical evidence, and reports from federal personnel, significant discrepancies allegedly emerged.

Those discrepancies eventually led federal officials themselves to revise portions of their original narrative.

The Department of Homeland Security later acknowledged that statements provided by some ICE personnel regarding the incident were inaccurate.

As a result, federal prosecutors dropped criminal charges that had originally been filed against Sosa-Celis and two other individuals who had been accused of participating in an assault against federal officers.

The decision to abandon those charges further intensified scrutiny surrounding the conduct of the agents involved.

Officials have indicated that at least two immigration officers were placed on administrative leave while federal authorities conducted separate internal investigations.

Those officers have not been publicly identified.

Federal officials have also acknowledged that additional criminal exposure could exist for individuals accused of providing false statements during the investigation.

“Lying under oath is a serious federal offense,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said when discussing the ongoing inquiry.

While Castro’s case continues moving forward, it is not the only confrontation between Minnesota prosecutors and federal immigration officials.

Earlier this year, another ICE agent, Gregory Donnell Morgan Jr., was charged with assault after prosecutors alleged he pointed a firearm at a vehicle while driving on a Minneapolis-area highway.

Morgan has denied wrongdoing and remains on active duty.

His attorney has stated that he continues to perform his responsibilities with ICE while the legal process unfolds.

The twin prosecutions have fueled a broader legal and political debate regarding federal authority and state oversight.

Supporters of the charges argue that federal officers should be subject to the same criminal laws that apply to everyone else.

Critics contend that allowing state prosecutors to charge federal agents for actions taken during official operations could interfere with federal law enforcement responsibilities.

Legal observers say one major unresolved issue involves whether the federal government will intervene in Castro’s defense.

If federal attorneys determine that Castro was acting within the scope of his official duties, they could seek to move portions of the case into federal court.

Such a move could create a complex legal battle over jurisdiction and prosecutorial authority.

At present, it remains unclear whether the federal government plans to provide legal assistance to Castro or whether he will retain private counsel.

Court records have not yet identified an attorney representing him.

Adding another layer of confusion, officials initially issued conflicting statements regarding the agencies involved in Castro’s arrest.

A statement from the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office first indicated that personnel from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General participated in the operation.

However, representatives from the inspector general’s office later publicly denied playing any role in planning or executing the arrest.

The prosecutor’s office subsequently revised its statement, clarifying that inspector general personnel were merely present at the scene rather than actively participating.

As Castro awaits further court proceedings, the case continues to attract national attention.

Immigration enforcement remains one of the most divisive issues in American politics, and allegations involving the use of force by federal agents frequently generate intense public reaction.

For supporters of the prosecution, the arrest demonstrates that state authorities are willing to pursue accountability regardless of a suspect’s federal status.

For critics, the case raises concerns about political interference in federal law enforcement operations.

What happens next may depend not only on the evidence presented in court but also on larger constitutional questions regarding the balance of power between state governments and federal agencies.

For now, Castro remains at the center of a legal battle that extends far beyond a single shooting incident.

As prosecutors prepare their case and defense attorneys begin formulating their response, the outcome could have implications reaching well beyond Minnesota, potentially influencing future efforts by state officials to investigate and prosecute federal law enforcement officers accused of misconduct.

The case is expected to move through the courts in the coming months, with both legal experts and law enforcement agencies across the country closely watching what may become a landmark confrontation over accountability, jurisdiction, and the limits of federal authority.