ICE agent accused of shooting, lying released from Texas jail pending extradition

Christian Castro, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer accused of shooting a man and then lying about the incident, was released from a Texas jail on Thursday. A judge declined to order his return to Minnesota, where he faces charges of assault and falsely reporting a crime.

Castro was released at dawn from a detention center in Brownsville. He quickly departed in an SUV, briefly acknowledging the media presence. The ruling came after U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. stated he could not prevent a county sheriff from releasing Castro or compel Texas Governor Greg Abbott to sign an extradition warrant.

In Minnesota, Castro is charged in connection with a January 14 shooting of 24-year-old Julio César Sosa-Celis. Prosecutors allege Castro fired a gun through a Minneapolis home's front door, hitting Sosa-Celis in the leg. They also claim Castro falsely accused Sosa-Celis and another man of attacking him with a broom handle and a snow shovel.

Minnesota authorities arrested Castro in Cameron County, Texas, on May 29, following a nationwide warrant issued in May. However, he remained in custody in Brownsville, a city on the border with Mexico. Minnesota officials expressed concern that Castro might flee to Mexico.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison had requested a temporary restraining order to block Castro's release or secure his return. Texas attorneys argued that the judge could not rule on a pending decision. Governor Abbott has not yet ruled on the extradition, reportedly awaiting the outcome of an internal state investigation into whether Castro legally qualified as a "fugitive" under extradition clauses.

Judge Rodriguez stated the court lacked jurisdiction, as Minnesota's claims were based on a potential future violation by Governor Abbott, not a past one. Texas law requires the release of detainees after 90 days if extradition is not finalized. Ellison confirmed his office would continue litigation but did not specify the next steps.

“

The Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the case is not ripe for adjudication. Minnesota cannot premise its causes of action on the allegation that Governor Abbott may violate those authorities in the future; it must prove that a violation has already occurred.