I recently handled a case that stayed with me. A young girl arrived in the United States, raised and supported by her father who petitioned for her. She finished school here and, while in college, applied for naturalization, passing the tests and interview with confidence. Then USCIS told her the green card she had relied on for years was ‘unlawfully obtained’ after a DNA test pushed by her step-mom excluded biological parentage. One lab result wiped out the legal basis for her permanent residence and abruptly derailed her path to citizenship.
As an immigration attorney, I see how easily loving family relationships collide with rigid statutory definitions. This case forced me to confront difficult questions: What can I do to help her save the life she built here in the U.S.? What remedies exist when someone honestly believed their status was secure?
Case snapshot
Jean (not her real name) arrived in the United States at a young age after her U.S. citizen father successfully petitioned for her. She received a lawful permanent resident card, finished high school here and, while in college, applied for naturalization. She passed the required tests and interview, but her application for citizenship was denied.
Immigration officials ruled she had “unlawfully obtained” permanent resident status because she could not prove she was the biological child of the U.S. citizen who petitioned for her. A DNA test showed she was not the petitioner’s biological offspring, a fact neither Jean nor the petitioner knew. To Jean, the man had always been her father. He raised her, supported her and she recognized him as her parent. But under immigration law, lacking a biological, adopted or step-parent relationship meant she did not meet the child-based requirement of the IR2 immigrant classification.
Because she couldn’t prove the qualifying parent–child relationship, authorities treated her original permanent residence as improperly obtained and disqualified her from using it to pursue naturalization. Worse, the officer told her that, as a result, she had been working unlawfully, a conclusion I strongly dispute and vigorously challenged.
Immediate practical concerns
Jean’s story isn’t unique. Many people raised as children by a parent who later sponsors them confront the same painful shock when genetic tests contradict long-held family bonds. For Jean, the emotional blow was profound, and the legal consequences now threaten her future in the country she grew up in.
The now adult child in this position face urgent questions: Can she still naturalize? Can she lawfully work? Does the denial mean she is now unlawfully present? These are frightening issues for someone who lived their life believing the petitioner was their parent. In Jean’s case, she had no reason to know about any biological discrepancy, the petitioner raised, supported, and cared for her abroad. That reliance and the child’s long-term, lawful presence in the U.S. are important factual and legal points when seeking relief.
Can USCIS revisit prior approvals?
An approved I-130 and the issuance of a consular immigrant visa are important administrative findings, but they do not create an irrebuttable bar to later review. USCIS and the Department of State make fact-based decisions. If later evidence or credibility concerns arise, adjudicators can reexamine earlier findings. Matter of Ozkok, 19 I&N Dec. 546 (BIA 1988), shows that the agency may revisit previously accepted facts when new evidence undermines them.
How much weight does DNA evidence carry?
DNA evidence is highly probative of biological parentage. A conclusive exclusion is powerful, but it is not always dispositive of immigration or citizenship eligibility. Immigration law defines “parent” and “child” in statutory and legal terms that can include legitimation, adoption (INA § 101(b)(1), (b)(2)), acknowledged parentage, or lawful custody. Thus, even when DNA excludes biological parentage, a child may still meet the statutory criteria for acquisition or derivation of citizenship through these legal pathways.
Timing is key
Whenever USCIS decides a case, it issues a notice. This notice is crucial: it explains why your case was denied and describes any relief available to you. The notice also specifies when those remedies must be sought. In Jean’s case, the notice stated she could request a hearing on the naturalization decision within 30 calendar days of service (33 days if the notice was mailed). She missed that deadline.
When love doesn’t equal legal status
A child raised from infancy by a non‑biological parent who petitioned for them can grow up believing that person is their parent. They may attend school, work, pay taxes, and prepare for citizenship. But if a later genetic test shows no biological link and there’s no legal adoption, immigration authorities can treat the original admission as improperly obtained, even if neither party knew the truth.
Citizenship and permanent residence unlock basic rights: to live, work, travel, and access benefits. Losing those rights because a legal definition wasn’t met, despite decades of parental care, can upend lives. It can cause job loss, deportation risk, an inability to sponsor relatives, and severe emotional strain.
When love saved the day
Like a modern Cinderella, Jean’s story ended happily ever after. A father’s love was not enough to meet the legal test. True love’s kiss did. Prince charming stepped in and saved the day. The experience didn’t erase the pain, but what once looked like a legal dead end became a fresh start for Jean.
If you face this situation, contact an experienced immigration attorney immediately. Time limits and procedural rules can be tight; prompt legal advice is essential to preserve options and seek possible relief.
