Venezuelan Nationals Re-arrested by ICE After Federal Judge Orders Release

Two Venezuelan nationals, accused of assaulting a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer during a tumultuous arrest in Minneapolis, were ordered released, only to face immediate re-arrest by ICE. This development, reported by The Minnesota Star Tribune, has sparked legal and public interest.

Alfredo Alejandro Ajorna, aged 26, and Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, aged 24, were initially released under conditions set by a federal judge, who determined they did not pose a significant flight risk. However, ICE re-detained the men shortly after, even before they could leave the courthouse. This swift re-arrest prompted their attorneys to file a habeas corpus petition, resulting in Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz halting their removal from Minnesota. He also demanded the federal government clarify its actions by the end of the week.

The case stems from an incident on January 14, when ICE agents attempted a targeted traffic stop. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Sosa-Celis fled, leading to a sequence of events where he allegedly resisted arrest and assaulted an officer. During the struggle, two other individuals reportedly joined the altercation, striking the officer with a snow shovel and broom handle. The officer, in a bid to defend himself, discharged a shot hitting Sosa-Celis in the leg. Despite his injury, Sosa-Celis and the other men managed to retreat to an apartment where they briefly barricaded themselves.

All three men were eventually apprehended by ICE. DHS labeled the incident as attempted murder on a federal officer, due to the aggressive assault with a snow shovel and broom handle.

The federal affidavit identifies Sosa-Celis, Ajorna, and Gabriel Alejandro Hernandez-Ledezma as the suspects in the case. However, there is some discrepancy as the affidavit omits Hernandez-Ledezma, who remains held in a federal detention facility in Texas without federal charges.

Defense teams raised issues regarding the incident, challenging the timing and facts surrounding the shot or its circumstances. Based on photographic evidence and witness statements, they assert that the suspects may have already been indoors when the shot was fired.