A federal court has denied a request from Lluridia Ocampo Cambrai to stop her removal from the United States. The ruling affects Cambrai, a Mexican national, who fears that her immigration status will change due to her son aging out of a qualifying category. The case highlights the complexities of immigration law and the challenges faced by families in similar situations.
Cambrai filed her motion for a preliminary injunction on June 29, 2026, in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The court's decision is significant as it underscores the legal hurdles individuals face in immigration proceedings, especially when dealing with the age of dependents.
Background
Lluridia Ocampo Cambrai is a Mexican national living in the United States. She has been in removal proceedings initiated by the Department of Homeland Security. Cambrai applied for cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which allows for cancellation if the removal would cause exceptional hardship to a qualifying relative, such as a child.
Cambrai's application cited the severe hardships her removal would cause her 20-year-old son, A.A., who suffers from multiple disabilities, including cerebral palsy and schizencephaly. A.A. requires constant care and support from Cambrai. During a hearing on March 20, 2026, an Immigration Judge noted that the annual cap for granting cancellation of removal applications had already been met for that fiscal year. As a result, the judge placed Cambrai's application on a waiting list, delaying any final decision.
Time is of the essence for Cambrai, as A.A. will turn 21 on July 5, 2026, which would disqualify him as a dependent under the INA's definition of a qualifying child. Cambrai fears that by the time her application is reviewed, she will no longer meet the necessary criteria for cancellation of removal.
The Ruling
The court ruled against Cambrai's motion for a preliminary injunction, stating that she did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood that the court had jurisdiction over her claim. Judge Amit P. Mehta explained that the INA limits judicial review of removal orders, stating, "Judicial review of all questions of law and fact... arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States... shall be available only in judicial review of a final order."
According to the ruling, Cambrai's claim arises directly from her removal proceedings and involves the interpretation of statutory provisions. The court emphasized that because her proceedings were not yet concluded, it could not intervene. Judge Mehta noted, "This claim addresses a central question in her removal proceedings and thus falls squarely within the terms of Section 1252(b)(9)." Therefore, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested injunction.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Cambrai and others in similar situations. It highlights the challenges faced by individuals navigating the immigration system, particularly when dependent children age out of qualifying categories. The court's decision reinforces the idea that individuals must pursue their claims through the appropriate appellate channels rather than seeking intervention from district courts.
The ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving similar claims, emphasizing the limitations of judicial review in immigration matters. It suggests that individuals like Cambrai may have to wait for the final adjudication of their cases before seeking relief, even if that means facing potential disqualification due to changing circumstances.
What's Next
Cambrai's case can potentially be appealed to a higher court, but details about any related cases or further actions were not available in the court filing. The outcome of her appeal may influence how similar cases are handled in the future.