The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled Feb. 13 that Mario Rene Lopez automatically became a U.S. citizen when his mother naturalized, vacating a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that had denied his derivative citizenship claim.
The case, *Lopez v. Bondi*, involves interpretation of a now-repealed federal statute governing children born out of wedlock. Under the former law, certain children who were "born out of wedlock" and lawfully present in the United States automatically became U.S. citizens if their mother naturalized and "the paternity of the child ha[d] not been established by legitimation."
Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Toby Heytens concluded that Lopez's paternity had not been established by legitimation when his mother naturalized. The court found that because Lopez met all remaining requirements for derivative citizenship under the statute, he automatically became a U.S. citizen upon his mother's naturalization.
The decision represents a victory for Lopez, who was represented by Benjamin James Osorio of Murray Osorio PLLC in Fairfax, Virginia. Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi's office, represented by Gregory A. Pennington Jr. of the U.S. Department of Justice, had opposed Lopez's petition.
Judges Jay Quattlebaum and Julius Richardson Berner joined Heytens' opinion. The case was argued Oct. 22, 2025, before the Richmond-based appeals court.
The statutory provision at issue, former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)(3), was part of immigration law from 1952 that has since been repealed. The law provided a pathway to derivative citizenship for children born outside marriage under specific circumstances, including when the mother became a naturalized citizen and paternity had not been legally established.
The Board of Immigration Appeals had previously ruled against Lopez's citizenship claim, prompting his petition for review to the Fourth Circuit. Immigration appeals courts frequently review BIA decisions on citizenship and immigration status determinations.
Derivative citizenship cases often turn on complex legal questions about family relationships and the timing of various legal proceedings. In this instance, the court's analysis focused on whether Lopez's paternity had been "established by legitimation" - a legal term referring to formal recognition of a father-child relationship.
The Fourth Circuit's determination that legitimation had not occurred cleared the way for Lopez to qualify for automatic citizenship under the repealed statute. The court noted that all parties agreed Lopez satisfied the other requirements for derivative citizenship.
Immigration law has evolved significantly since the 1952 statute was in effect. Current immigration statutes contain different provisions for derivative citizenship, but cases involving older laws continue to work their way through the courts as individuals seek to establish their citizenship status based on historical family circumstances.
The case highlights ongoing complexities in immigration law regarding children born to unmarried parents and questions of legal paternity. These issues can have profound implications for individuals' citizenship status and their ability to remain in the United States.
Lopez's legal team included John W. Goodman, Hannah Bridges, and Alexandra Ciullo from Murray Osorio PLLC. The government's brief was prepared by Acting Assistant Attorney General Yaakov M. Roth and Acting Assistant Director Nancy Friedman from the Office of Immigration Litigation in the Justice Department's Civil Division.
The Fourth Circuit covers appeals from federal district courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. The court hears numerous immigration-related appeals each year, including citizenship determinations, removal proceedings, and asylum cases.
By vacating the BIA's orders and remanding with instructions, the Fourth Circuit effectively directed the immigration board to grant Lopez's citizenship claim. The remand indicates the appeals court found the BIA's original analysis legally insufficient.
The published opinion will serve as precedent for similar cases involving the interpretation of repealed immigration statutes and questions of derivative citizenship. While the specific statutory provision is no longer in effect, the court's analysis of legitimation and paternity establishment may influence how courts interpret related provisions in current immigration law.
Legal practitioners in immigration law closely watch Fourth Circuit decisions, as the court's jurisdiction includes Virginia, home to a significant immigrant population and numerous immigration law firms. The Lopez decision provides guidance for attorneys representing clients with similar historical citizenship claims.
The case underscores the importance of thorough legal analysis in immigration proceedings, particularly when dealing with older statutes and complex family law questions that intersect with citizenship determinations.