The future of Wilber Rafael Garces Perez, a 28-year-old Venezuelan delivery driver who was shot by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in Austin, Texas, now hinges on a federal court hearing that could determine what happens next in his immigration case.
For the moment, Garces Perez cannot be deported. U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garcia has ordered him to appear in person at a federal hearing on September 30 at noon, giving his attorneys an opportunity to seek a longer stay of removal while the shooting, his detention and his immigration status remain under scrutiny.
Federal judge puts Garces Perez’s deportation on hold
Garces Perez remains in federal immigration custody after being hospitalized following the September 20 shooting. He was later transferred to the South Texas ICE Processing Center in Pearsall, located roughly 130 to 135 miles from Austin.
His attorney, Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch, says Garces Perez still has a bullet lodged in his back and has experienced continuing pain and weakness. The Department of Homeland Security has disputed his description of the treatment he received in custody, saying he was receiving medical care around the clock.
The immediate legal development came after Garces Perez’s attorneys filed an emergency federal case seeking temporary protection from removal.
| Date / Time | Development | Details |
| September 20, 2026, approximately 12:56 p.m. | Shooting | Garces Perez was shot near West Anderson Lane and Research Boulevard in North Austin |
| September 21, 2026 | Federal petition filed | Attorneys filed a habeas corpus petition and emergency motions in the Western District of Texas |
| September 22, 2026 | Austin footage released | Austin Police Department released dashcam, cellphone and body-camera footage |
| September 22, 2026 | Travis County DA request | The district attorney’s office asked DHS and ICE to halt removal proceedings |
| September 30, 2026, 12 p.m. | Federal hearing | Judge Garcia has ordered an in-person hearing, with Garces Perez required to appear |
The federal docket identifies the case as Garces Perez v. Thompson, No. 5:26-cv-06038-OLG.
More Legal Battles: New restitution laws are reigniting decades-old disputes over Nazi-looted masterpieces. For more, read our story on the New Nazi-Looted Art Laws Legal Battles.
What Garces Perez’s federal habeas case is asking the court to do
On September 21, his attorneys filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Western District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
They also filed an emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, his release from ICE custody and a stay of removal.
One important detail separates this case from a direct challenge to his existing immigration order: his lawyers specifically said they are not asking the court to invalidate his existing removal order.
Instead, they are asking for a limited period in the United States so Garces Perez can investigate and potentially pursue U nonimmigrant status, commonly known as a U visa.
That immigration classification is available in certain circumstances to victims of qualifying crimes who assist law enforcement.
The court docket shows that Judge Garcia scheduled the emergency motion for an in-person hearing on September 30, 2026, at 12 p.m. A related order requires Garces Perez to be present.
The order states:
“petitioner must be present at the hearing.”
Because Garces Perez must appear before the court, immigration authorities cannot remove him before that proceeding.
The September 30 hearing is not a final decision on whether he can permanently remain in the United States. It also does not resolve the competing accounts surrounding the shooting.
Instead, the hearing will address the emergency relief requested by his attorneys while the broader legal and investigative issues continue.
Why his attorneys say the emergency hearing matters
According to the habeas petition, Garces Perez was shot at approximately 12:56 p.m. on September 20 near West Anderson Lane and Research Boulevard in North Austin.
Austin-Travis County EMS transported him to Dell Seton Medical Center, where he was treated for a gunshot wound. He was released into ICE custody several hours later, according to the filing.
His attorneys allege that he was taken to a temporary processing center after leaving the hospital and was made to sleep on a cement floor before being transferred to the Pearsall facility early the following morning.
They further allege that he was questioned without counsel present and remained in pain while the bullet was still lodged in his body.
Those statements are allegations contained in the petition and have not been adjudicated by the court.
Garces Perez’s lawyers say he believes he may qualify to seek a U visa. USCIS guidance states that U applicants generally need a law-enforcement certification and must establish that the relevant qualifying criminal activity was detected, investigated or prosecuted.
His attorneys argue that deporting him before he has a meaningful opportunity to pursue that relief could permanently prevent him from seeking it from inside the United States.
Recent Copyright Disputes: A takedown fight over video game music licensing has escalated all the way to federal court. For more, check out our coverage of the GameChops v. Materia Music Lawsuit.
Garces Perez says he was working as a DoorDash driver
The circumstances immediately preceding the shooting remain one of the central disputed parts of the case.
Lincoln-Goldfinch has identified Garces Perez as a DoorDash delivery driver who was working in North Austin when he encountered ICE agents.
According to the account provided by his attorney, an unmarked vehicle sideswiped his car. Garces Perez did not initially realize that the people involved were ICE officers, she said.
She said he subsequently made a U-turn and was shot while still inside his vehicle.
Garces Perez himself has said he tried to pull over.
Reuters reported that he said the agents did not identify themselves or use lights or sirens before the encounter escalated. Accounts from law enforcement differ on what happened immediately before the shooting.
The precise sequence of events is now being examined by multiple agencies.
Austin police footage provides more context but does not capture the shooting
The Austin Police Department released dashcam, cellphone and body-camera footage on September 22, offering additional information about the encounter and its aftermath.
Police Chief Lisa Davis said an off-duty Austin police detective recorded black SUVs surrounding a dark blue Toyota Corolla before the shooting.
Other footage captured officers arriving afterward. The released body-camera material shows Garces Perez inside his vehicle after he had been shot and officers responding at the scene.
But there is a major limitation to the footage: the Austin police body-camera video does not show the actual moment of the shooting.
The recordings made by the off-duty detective show events leading up to it, while other footage documents what happened afterward. The released material therefore adds context but does not resolve the central dispute over why the ICE officer fired.
According to Associated Press reporting, Davis said there had been a pursuit through neighborhood streets that ended about 200 yards from where Garces Perez was eventually shot.
The released APD footage does not establish what happened during the shooting itself.
CBS News also reported, citing sources familiar with the investigation, that the ICE officer involved was not wearing a body camera.
ICE had previously said its field officers nationwide would have body-worn cameras by the end of September.
DHS and Garces Perez’s attorney dispute his immigration history
The federal government and Garces Perez’s lawyer also give different accounts concerning his immigration history.
The Department of Homeland Security has confirmed that Garces Perez is from Venezuela and has a final order of removal.
DHS has said he entered the United States illegally and that the shooting is being investigated by Homeland Security Investigations with assistance from the FBI.
Lincoln-Goldfinch disputes that description of his entry.
She says Garces Perez entered the United States in 2024 through CBP One, a program that allowed certain migrants to schedule appointments with U.S. authorities, and subsequently sought asylum. She also says he had a valid work permit.
According to his attorney, the deportation order followed a missed immigration hearing because the hearing notice was sent to a former address.
His federal petition does not ask Judge Garcia to overturn that removal order. Instead, it seeks enough time for him to pursue separate immigration relief and challenge his continued detention.
That distinction is central to understanding the current case. The existence of a final removal order and the separate question of whether Garces Perez should temporarily remain in the country while seeking additional relief are different legal issues.
His medical condition has become another disputed issue
Garces Perez’s treatment after the shooting has also become a point of disagreement.
He was initially transported to a hospital following the shooting. His attorney later said he was released into ICE custody while the bullet remained lodged in his body and was subsequently transferred to the Pearsall detention facility.
After he reported worsening symptoms and loss of sensation on his left side, he was taken back to a hospital for further medical attention, according to his attorney and congressional officials.
Reuters reported that he was subsequently returned to detention.
Garces Perez told reporters that he was not receiving adequate medical care while detained.
DHS gave a different account, saying he was being treated “around the clock, including pain medication” and had slept on a bed rather than the floor.
His attorneys’ court filings describe continuing pain and weakness and ask for his release from ICE custody, arguing that his medical condition makes the detention particularly urgent.
At this stage, however, the docket does not show that Judge Garcia has granted the requested release.
Travis County asks ICE to delay his removal
The federal lawsuit was not the only effort to stop Garces Perez’s removal.
On September 22, the Travis County District Attorney’s Office sent letters to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and ICE Acting Director David Venturella asking them to halt removal proceedings against Garces Perez while the shooting investigation continues.
The district attorney’s office said deporting him could seriously hinder his ability to participate as a material witness in the investigation or any future prosecution.
The request was framed around the integrity of the investigation rather than a determination about who was responsible for the shooting.
The office has also called for a more independent investigation, asking Austin police and the Travis County District Attorney’s Office to participate alongside federal authorities.
The federal government is conducting its own investigation with HSI and FBI involvement.
Austin officials are also reviewing what happened
Austin police were not involved in the underlying ICE operation or the shooting, according to the police department.
Local officers arrived afterward and documented the scene.
The Austin Police Department is now reviewing what happened, while the Texas Rangers are also involved. As a result, parallel federal and local inquiries are examining the incident.
Austin Mayor Kirk Watson and Police Chief Lisa Davis have called for greater transparency about the shooting.
Public demonstrations have also taken place in Austin since the incident, including a gathering near the Texas Capitol.
What happens at the September 30 federal hearing?
The September 30 hearing now represents the next major procedural step in the case.
For the moment, Garces Perez’s removal has been paused while Judge Garcia considers the emergency motion filed by his attorneys.
The federal docket shows that the government has already entered an appearance in the case. The court has also ordered respondents to provide information concerning Garces Perez’s entry into the United States, previous immigration custody and the status of his immigration and removal proceedings.
That means the hearing is expected to address more than the immediate question of deportation.
Both sides will have an opportunity to present arguments concerning his detention, his request for additional time to pursue U nonimmigrant status, and the government’s position on his removal.
After the emergency filing, Lincoln-Goldfinch said:
“We have filed a federal lawsuit, and the judge has ordered that he be present at the first hearing, which is scheduled for Wednesday, September 30.”
That order means Garces Perez will remain in the United States at least until the court proceedings reach that stage.
What happens afterward will depend on Judge Garcia’s rulings and the separate immigration and criminal investigations that remain underway.
More Crime News: Thieves sliced through frames to make off with two paintings in a brazen French Riviera museum raid. For more, read our report on the Renoir Museum Heist.
Conclusion
The case of Wilber Rafael Garces Perez now sits at the intersection of an unresolved shooting investigation, an existing immigration removal order, a disputed account of his treatment in federal custody and an emergency request for additional time to pursue U nonimmigrant status.
Judge Orlando L. Garcia’s order does not permanently resolve Garces Perez’s immigration status or determine what happened during the September 20 shooting. It does, however, ensure that he will appear before the federal court on September 30 at noon before immigration authorities can remove him.
With federal agencies, Austin officials and the Travis County District Attorney’s Office examining different aspects of the case, the upcoming hearing will provide the next significant opportunity for both sides to address what happens to Garces Perez while those investigations and legal proceedings continue.
Disclaimer
This article has been prepared based on thorough research of the sources provided in the original verified material, including the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Travis County District Attorney’s Office, Associated Press, Reuters, CBS News, The Texas Tribune and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The article reflects the information, court filings, government statements, attorney accounts and reporting contained in those sources. Disputed allegations and competing accounts have been identified as such, and the circumstances surrounding the September 20 shooting remain under investigation. The federal court’s temporary action does not constitute a final ruling on Garces Perez’s immigration status or the circumstances of the shooting.
Sources
U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas: Garces Perez v. Thompson, Case No. 5:26-cv-06038-OLG, including the federal docket, petition and emergency motion.
Federal case docket and filings
Travis County District Attorney’s Office: September 22, 2026 request to DHS and ICE to halt removal proceedings involving Garces Perez while the shooting investigation continues.
Travis County DA official statement
Associated Press: September 22, 2026 report covering Judge Garcia’s order, Austin police footage, Garces Perez’s detention and competing accounts from DHS and his attorney.
Associated Press report
Reuters: September 22, 2026 reporting on Garces Perez’s medical condition, detention and attorney’s account of the shooting.
Reuters report
CBS News: Reporting on Garces Perez’s detention and sources’ account that the ICE officer involved in the shooting was not wearing a body camera.
CBS News report
The Texas Tribune: Reporting on Garces Perez’s account of the encounter, his immigration history as described by his attorney and Austin’s independent investigation.
Texas Tribune report
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: Official information regarding eligibility requirements for U nonimmigrant status and law-enforcement certification.
USCIS information on U nonimmigrant status
Featured Image Credit: KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA / Pexels
Leave a Reply