ICE Agent Faces False Statements Charge After Video Contradicts Shooting Account

Immigrant families are pushing back against a sweeping ban on physical contact visits at California’s largest immigration detention center, where relatives say the policy has turned routine visits into emotionally devastating encounters separated by glass. The California City facility, run by private operator CoreCivic and holding around 1,600 people, has prohibited all contact visits since the Trump administration reopened the site last year. Mothers and other relatives who travel long distances report being unable to embrace loved ones or even sit together during birthdays and other milestones.

Teresa Reyes, 63, drove 300 miles to see her son Guillermo on his 32nd birthday in May. She described the visit as a painful exercise in restraint. “I want to hold my son, I want to touch him, I want to assure him everything is going to be OK, but I can’t,” she said in Spanish. “When I see him, I have to hold back tears.” Advocates note that even facilities holding people convicted of serious crimes typically allow table visits unless specific security threats exist. The blanket prohibition at California City stands out as unusually restrictive for a site detaining individuals primarily on civil immigration matters.

The policy coincides with broader concerns about accountability inside ICE operations. In a separate case out of Minneapolis, federal prosecutors had prepared civil rights charges against an ICE agent accused of shooting a Venezuelan immigrant during a January enforcement action. The agent, Christian Castro, allegedly shot Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the leg and then provided false information about the incident. The shooting occurred amid Operation Metro Surge, which deployed thousands of federal agents across the state and resulted in three separate shootings by immigration officers, two of them fatal.

Internal communications show that Department of Justice officials in Washington overruled local prosecutors who had “strongest possible” objections to dropping the case. The decision came despite evidence gathered by Minnesota-based federal attorneys. Critics argue the intervention signals a pattern of shielding federal agents from scrutiny during expanded immigration enforcement.

Supporters of stricter enforcement often portray resistance to ICE tactics as obstruction of legitimate law enforcement. Yet accounts from detention centers and shooting investigations reveal policies that extend beyond standard criminal justice practices, including prolonged isolation from family and limited external oversight. Families affected by the no-contact rule continue to organize visits and legal challenges, insisting that basic human contact should not be treated as a privilege denied to those held on immigration violations alone. The combination of restricted visitation and dropped charges in use-of-force cases has intensified calls for greater transparency at facilities like California City and within field operations nationwide.