On a September afternoon in Austin, Texas, Wilber Rafael Garcés Perez a 28-year-old Venezuelan who had been working for DoorDash, found himself at the centre of a violent encounter with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While delivering an order on the city’s north side, an ICE-marked vehicle approached his blue sedan, collided with it and then opened fire. Garcés Perez was hit once in the upper back, the projectile lodging close to his spine. He was rushed to a downtown hospital, but within hours ICE agents transferred him to a federal detention centre in Pearsall, about 130 miles from Austin, despite the bullet still being inside his body.
The shooting and its immediate aftermath
Surveillance footage posted online shows an ICE officer exiting a black SUV and firing three rounds at the nearly stationary sedan. The car sustained a large dent on the passenger side, and the driver fell to the ground clutching his chest. Emergency medical technicians arrived first, providing basic first aid before Garcés Perez was moved to a local hospital. According to his lawyer, Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch, the patient was later taken from the hospital to the Pearsall ICE Processing Center in the early hours of Monday, where he was left without pain medication and with the bullet still embedded near his spinal column.
Legal, medical and procedural fallout
Garcés Perez’s attorney contacted the media on Monday, relaying that her client “has not received any medical attention” and is “in a lot of pain.” The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued an initial statement describing the victim as an “illegal alien” in “stable condition” and said the case was being investigated by Homeland Security Investigations alongside the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). However, the lawyer asserted that Garcés Perez had applied for asylum and was legally present in the United States, contradicting DHS’s wording.
Medical records indicate the bullet’s proximity to the spine made immediate removal risky, a fact the detainee was told by doctors. Nonetheless, he reported that guards had refused his pleas for analgesics. The episode echoes a recent Minnesota case where an ICE officer was charged with falsifying reports about a non-fatal shooting, highlighting growing scrutiny over agency transparency.
Public reaction and political response
Within an hour of the shooting, more than a hundred demonstrators assembled at the scene, waving Mexican, Guatemalan and American flags while chanting slogans demanding that ICE leave Austin. Protestors sprayed their eyes and mouths with what they described as teargas, intensifying the atmosphere of anger. Mayor Kirk Watson a Democrat, held a briefing stating that Austinites have a right to “know the truth” and to feel safe in their city. He pledged that the city would cooperate with any investigation.
Congressman Greg Casar also a Democrat, issued a formal request to DHS for an immediate, independent inquiry and the release of body-camera footage. He warned that any officer who breached the law must be held accountable. Local councilmember José “Chito” Vela noted a recent surge in ICE-only operations in Austin, citing a rise in unilateral enforcement actions without state-trooper backing. The shooting follows a series of high-profile incidents, including the fatal shooting of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston, which intensified calls for reforms such as mandatory body-cameras and prohibitions on officers concealing their faces.
Amid the unrest, Republican Florida Representative Maria Elvira Salazar condemned the “targeting and detaining of individuals who have no criminal record,” releasing an advertisement that criticised the current crackdown. She later appeared on a national news program, asserting that the president understands the need for “strong border security.”
As the investigation proceeds, the central questions remain: why did an ICE officer open fire without first demanding the driver stop, and why was the victim transferred to a detention facility while still in critical condition? Austin’s residents, advocacy groups, and federal lawmakers continue to press for answers, seeking both accountability for the officer involved and broader reforms to an agency that many view as operating without sufficient oversight.
