The impact of social mobility on kinship relations is a neglected area of social mobility studies in China. Drawing on intensive interviews with thirty successful migrant families in Beijing, this research aims to investigate the effect of social mobility on kinship relations of the successful migrants. It has been found that the economic success of the interviewees did not estrange them from kin but rather strengthened their ties and obligations towards each other. As the most successful figure in their families, the interviewees played a role as an “elevator”, supporting their kin to move upward. Their relations with kin largely followed the rule of “the differential mode of association”. Among the various kinship ties, immediate kin like parents and siblings were the most close and supportive. They remained the most important sources of emotional and practical support for the interviewees. Other relatives, such as cousins, aunts, or nephews, were less helpful. Usually it was through elders that they sustained contact with each other. It was also found that the relations of the interviewees with their paternal and maternal parents were differential in terms of the degree of intimacy, obligations and mutual support. In line with China’s traditional patrilineal family principle, they usually involved much more mutual support with paternal parents than with maternal parents. However, this by no means suggests that the women were becoming estranged from their parents. Rather, the niangjia (a married woman’s natal family) was always the most powerful backing of the women. What is at stake here is that in the Chinese case obligations and rights were especially emphasized on the patrilineal family side. This inclination was so significant that it affected many aspects of the life of the interviewees (noted that such differentiation was only applicable for parent-child relations and not for siblings and other kin). The interviewees usually took full responsibilities towards their maternal parents in the case that the sons of their maternal parents failed to fulfil them. This is quite different from what have been found in cities, where both paternal and maternal sides are emphasized and maternal parents are even paid more attention. However, it needs to be noted that despite no disruptive effects, the mobility of the interviewees did influence their kinship relations in some aspects. Their relations with siblings and extended kin tended to be largely unequal due to the fact that these kin usually relied on them to obtain substantial support. In other words, although their mobility did not undermine their intimacy with siblings, it did change the nature andpower structure of their relations. As already mentioned, the interviewees usually maintained close contact with siblings. The overwhelming majority of them considered their siblings very reliable and supportive in times of need, especially when encountering big issues or in a crisis. The involvement of substantial support significantly strengthened their bonds and obligation to each other. Nevertheless, due to the asymmetrical contributions between the two sides, their relations with siblings tended to be unequal. The interviewees usually played an important role in helping their siblings to leave the land and establish smoothly in the city. Yet, their siblings often could not provide them with such crucial help. The asymmetrical contributions of the two sides then gradually placed the ‘benefactor’ in a superior position in relation to the ‘beneficiary’. An asymmetrical relationship then began to take shape when the two parties both felt the need for the ‘beneficiary’ to show respect to the ‘benefactor’. Such unequal relationsare also found between them and their extended kin. To sum up, social mobility itself has no necessary disruptive consequences on kinship relations. The interviewees largely maintained similar sociability patterns with kin as in their pre-mobility period. Yet, despite no effects on relations with parents, the economic success of the interviewees did lead to asymmetrical relations with siblings and extended kin due to the fact that these relatives usually relied on them to migrate or obtain substantial support. These findings suggest that although social mobility is not inimical to kinship maintenance, it is likely to change the nature – or it may be more appropriate to say, the power structure – of kinship relations.