FOLLOW US

AUSTIN, Texas — A delivery driver wounded by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer says he spent the night in detention without a bed, still carrying a bullet in his body. His account has widened scrutiny of Sunday's Austin ICE shooting to include what happened after he left the hospital.

Wilber Rafael Garces Perez, 28, spoke by phone during his legal team's news conference Monday, Sept. 21. He described continuing pain and inadequate treatment after his transfer to federal custody. His attorney, Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch, is seeking his release and medical care.

“I am not doing well due to the gunshot wound and I have not received the medical attention that I require,” he said in Spanish, through a translation provided at the news conference and reported by Austin public radio station KUT.

The Department of Homeland Security says the Venezuelan man is subject to a final removal order. His lawyers dispute the government's description of how he entered the country, while Austin officials are demanding an investigation with meaningful state and local involvement.

Those disputes now encompass two distinct government responsibilities: explaining why an officer fired and ensuring the wounded man receives appropriate care in custody. Neither question is answered simply by establishing whether immigration authorities can detain him.

https://youtube.com/shorts/Quf3OpkAC3s?si=_FwwTsrl2gz1Ay4A

From a hospital to immigration detention

Garces Perez was being held at the South Texas ICE Processing Center in Pearsall on Monday, according to his lawyers. Speaking during the news conference, he said doctors had left the bullet in place because it was near his spine. He also said a nurse eventually gave him a pill Monday after he had gone without pain medication in detention, The Associated Press reported.

His account makes the timing and substance of treatment important. Receiving medication Monday would not, by itself, establish what care was available overnight. Nor does leaving the hospital establish that a patient has recovered or no longer needs follow-up treatment.

The hospital discharge instructions, medication orders and detention medical records would help establish what clinicians recommended and what staff provided. USA Herald has not reviewed those records and cannot independently determine whether his treatment met clinical requirements.

There is also an important distinction between leaving a bullet in place and leaving an injury untreated. MedlinePlus, the National Library of Medicine's health information service, explains that removing retained bullet fragments can sometimes cause additional damage. Its gunshot-wound aftercare guidance emphasizes wound care, following medication instructions and seeking medical attention when pain worsens or fails to improve.

That general guidance cannot resolve Garces Perez's individual medical needs. It does explain why the central issue is not simply whether a bullet was removed. It is whether the treatment plan, pain management and conditions after discharge were appropriate for his injury.

His family struggled to find him, lawyer says

Lincoln-Goldfinch described hours of uncertainty after the shooting. She said Garces Perez called his wife, told her he had been shot and was in pain, and then the call ended.

His wife went to the hospital but was told he was not there, the attorney said. Lincoln-Goldfinch said she later returned with the wife and encountered the same response from security personnel. According to her account, Mayor Kirk Watson intervened to help obtain information from hospital administrators.

The attorney said they subsequently learned Garces Perez had been discharged into ICE custody, but did not locate him until about 10 a.m. Monday. FOX 7 Austin published her account of the search.

The hospital's decisions and the federal transfer are separate parts of the timeline. Establishing when he was discharged, where he was taken and when his legal team learned his location would help clarify who was responsible for him at each stage.

By Monday, the immediate uncertainty about his location had been resolved. The questions about his treatment had not.

Austin ICE shooting puts detention care under scrutiny.

Medical care in immigration custody is governed by more than an agency's general assurance that someone is stable. Facilities operate under detention standards that address screening, treatment and access to outside services.

A Congressional Research Service report on detention medical care explains that contracts and agreements determine which standards apply to individual facilities. Across the three principal sets examined in its April 2024 report, required services included intake screening, responses to medical complaints and medically indicated emergency care, specialty treatment and hospitalization.

The report also describes responsibilities for arranging care that a detention facility cannot provide itself. Some facilities use ICE Health Service Corps personnel; others rely on local government staff or contractors under federal oversight. The existence of an outside provider does not eliminate the need to account for how care is delivered.

These standards supply a framework for examining Garces Perez's allegations, not a finding that his facility violated them. A meaningful review would compare his condition and discharge plan with the care documented after his arrival. It would also establish whether staff assessed his complaints and arranged any necessary additional treatment.

The relevant records are more specific than a general description of detention health services. They include when he was examined, what medication was ordered and administered, and whether a clinician determined that the facility could safely meet his needs.

Conflicting accounts of the encounter

Garces Perez's description of the shooting also challenges the preliminary account that emerged Sunday. He said he was making a DoorDash delivery when an SUV approached and tried to hit his car. At first, he thought he was dealing with an aggressive driver.

Once he recognized ICE officers, he said, he tried to find a place to pull over. He described making a U-turn before another collision and the gunfire. He denied that a foot pursuit occurred, according to FOX 7's report of his public remarks.

At Sunday's briefing, Austin Police Chief Lisa Davis had relayed information about a possible brief foot pursuit. She stressed that it was preliminary and said federal authorities had not yet briefed her on the operation. Austin police were not involved in the shooting.

EMS Chief Rob Luckritz said crews received notification at about 12:56 p.m. and arrived roughly 3 1/2 minutes later. They transported the wounded man to a trauma center in serious but stable condition. FOX 7 reported those statements from city officials.

The distinction between a preliminary account and an established sequence is consequential. A vehicle pursuit, a collision and a foot pursuit are not interchangeable descriptions. Investigators will need to reconcile the accounts with recordings, physical evidence and communications from the officers involved.

The available aftermath footage does not, by itself, establish everything that preceded the shot. Describing the complete encounter requires a timeline that begins before the wounded driver appears in the videos.

Texas Department of Public Safety spokesperson Sheridan Nolen said ICE requested assistance with a pursuit of a blue Toyota Corolla at about 12:50 p.m. Sunday. The shooting had already occurred when troopers arrived, Nolen said, and they helped provide medical treatment. The Texas Tribune reported the DPS account.

Protests follow the shooting

Demonstrators gathered near Research Boulevard and Anderson Square as word of the shooting spread. The crowd remained into the evening, putting the wounded driver's encounter with federal officers at the center of an increasingly tense confrontation over immigration enforcement.

The Texas Tribune reported that officers fired pepper ball-like projectiles shortly before 6 p.m., after some demonstrators threw rocks and water bottles as law enforcement personnel prepared to leave. That account concerns the later demonstration, not the circumstances in which Garces Perez was shot.

Keeping those events separate is essential to the investigation. Conduct by people arriving afterward cannot establish what threat, if any, the driver posed when the ICE officer fired.

A removal order does not justify deadly force

DHS said Garces Perez entered the United States illegally during the Biden administration and had a final removal order. Lincoln-Goldfinch said he entered through the CBP One appointment process in 2024 and had a work permit. She attributed the removal order to a missed immigration hearing after notice went to an old address, according to KUT's account of Monday's briefing.

USA Herald has not reviewed his immigration file. His lawyers' account and the government's statement should not be treated as substitutes for the underlying entry and court records.

Even if a removal order supplies authority for immigration detention, the use of deadly force must meet a separate standard. Federal regulations governing immigration enforcement permit deadly force only when an authorized officer reasonably believes it is necessary to protect someone from imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.

The regulation also requires officers making an arrest to identify themselves and state the reason as soon as doing so is practical and safe. Garces Perez's account makes the timing of identification, attempted stopping and gunfire relevant to the investigation, though his allegations alone do not establish a regulatory violation.

DHS's published 2023 use-of-force policy likewise says deadly force cannot be used solely to prevent a fleeing person's escape. It allows such force under specified circumstances involving a serious threat to officers or others.

The necessary inquiry therefore concerns what danger the officer reasonably perceived when firing. The man's nationality, immigration history or removal order cannot independently answer that question.

Who will examine the evidence?

DHS announced that Homeland Security Investigations would lead the inquiry with FBI assistance. That announcement is distinct from the city and county's requests for access and participation, which have emphasized the need for scrutiny beyond the immigration agency's own account. Reuters reported the federal investigation and the mayor's demand for local involvement.

Watson questioned whether an ICE-only investigation would carry public credibility. Davis said Austin police's Special Investigations Unit was at the scene and that Texas Rangers would work alongside the department. She also said Homeland Security Investigations had agreed to cooperate.

The Travis County district attorney's office sought access to the evidence and said the incident could involve violations of state law. That was a request for investigation, not an announcement of charges or a finding of criminal misconduct.

The difference between an agency participating and an agency having full access is significant. An outside investigator cannot independently assess an encounter without the recordings, reports and other evidence needed to reconstruct it. Public assurances of cooperation will ultimately have to be measured against what investigators receive.

Related coverage: FBI Supervisor Resigns After Dispute Over Minneapolis ICE Shooting Probe

A written demand to preserve the record

U.S. Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, has made those evidence requests in writing. In a Sept. 20 letter to DHS and ICE leadership, he demanded an independent investigation and asked that the officer be suspended and remain in Austin during the inquiry.

Casar requested preservation of surveillance, body-camera and dashboard-camera recordings, along with officer communications, witness statements, forensic evidence and vehicle data. He also sought public release of unedited footage and relevant recorded communications, and sharing of evidence with authorities conducting independent reviews.

His letter set Sept. 28 as the deadline for a congressional briefing. Among the requested topics were whether officers followed protocols for vehicle stops, force and warrantless arrests, and whether evidence was properly preserved.

Those demands are not court orders, and the letter does not establish whether all the requested recordings exist. It does identify a concrete set of materials against which the government's response can be assessed.

For now, the public record leaves both the shooting and the subsequent care unresolved. The investigation must establish what happened before the gunfire. The custody records must establish what happened afterward. Garces Perez's transfer out of the hospital closes neither inquiry.