ICE Says 2 Agents Apparently Lied, Could be Charged

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers appear to have lied about an incident and have been placed on leave, the agency’s head said on Feb. 13.

“A joint review by ICE and the Department of Justice (DOJ) of video evidence has revealed that sworn testimony provided by two separate officers appears to have made untruthful statements,” acting ICE Director Todd Lyons told The Epoch Times via email on Friday.

“Both officers have been immediately placed on administrative leave pending the completion of a thorough internal investigation. Lying under oath is a serious federal offense. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is actively investigating these false statements.”

Lyons said that when the probe is over, the officers could be fired and may be prosecuted.

“The men and women of ICE are entrusted with upholding the rule of law and are held to the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and ethical conduct,” he stated. “Violations of this sacred sworn oath will not be tolerated. ICE remains fully committed to transparency, accountability, and the fair enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.”

The Trump administration surged ICE personnel to Minneapolis in late 2025 to help deal with illegal immigrants, an operation officials recently announced is ending.

In an affidavit supporting charges against two men there, an FBI agent said that the men, Afredo Aljorna and Julio Sosa-Celis, had aided and abetted assaulting and interfering with ICE officers as they attempted to apprehend an illegal immigrant.

Lawyers for Aljorna said in court filings that their client did not assault any officers and that “no independent evidence supports the federal officer’s claim to the contrary.” Attorneys for Sosa-Celis, another illegal immigrant, said that he did not assault anyone and that he was pulling Aljourna away from law enforcement when an ICE officer shot him.

Prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota told the court on Feb. 11 that it should dismiss the case because “newly discovered evidence in this matter is materially inconsistent with the allegations.”

They did not go into detail about the nature of the evidence and how it undercut the charges.

The federal judge overseeing the case agreed on Friday to throw it out with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled in the future.