Nope
“Natural Born Citizen” means Citizen at Birth.
And where in the Constitution or the Common law as understood by the authors of and those who ratified that provision of the Constitution, is that written? Even a court case that says that, other than maybe in dicta?
Otherwise, it's just your opinion.
There really are no court cases, because the only time the distinction arises is for eligibility to the office of President. There has never been a President, or major party candidate, whose natural born status was questioned in court. Still aren't.
There is one President, Chester Arthur, who hid the fact that, while he was born in the US, and was thus a citizen at birth, his father was not naturalized until he was 14. The fact was only discovered until well after he had left office. And he was not elected to the Office, but rose to the office because as Vice President, his President, James A. Garfield, was assassinated. Of course the VP must meet the same qualifications, but generally does not get the same level of scrutiny, although his opponents did allege, falsely, that he had been born in Canada. Arthur actually lied about his father's status. He claimed that his father had come to the US at 18, and lived here for several years before marrying. He also lied about his father's age when he was born, as part of the "cover up".
So we've had a usurper before, one who knew he was a usurper. (How could he not have known that his father was naturalized when he was 14, nearly an adult in those days, and why would he lie about his father's age?) His mother was born in Vermont. His situation was thus very similar to Obama's except that we don't know for certain where Obama was born. But if he was born in Hawaii, the situation would very closely parallel Obama's, except that Arthur was raised by his parents, in Vermont, not in England, Canada or any other country, unlike Obama, who spent years living in and going the local schools in a foreign country (Indonesia).