MATTER of —Y—L-- 

In DEPORTATION Proceedings 

A-10672544 

Decided by Board May .03, 1961 

Evidence—Blood tests—Incompatibility of blood overcomes effect of prior admission as United States citizen. 

Blood grouping tests which establish the incompatibility of blood between a 

claimant to citizenship and his allegea pareuln cuustitute clear, unequivocal, 

and convincing evidence that warrants disregard of prior decisions admitting claimant as a United States citizen. 

CHARM: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (1) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (1)3—Excludable 

at time of entry—Immigrant, not in possession of a valid immigration visa under section 13(a) of the Immigration Act of May 

28, 1924_ 

Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (2)]—Entered 

without inspection. 

BEFORE THE BOARD 

DISCUSSION: Respondent, 23 years of age, single, male, a native 

of China, was admitted to the United States on December 14, 1947, 

as a United States citizen. He was accompanied by L G—S, the 

alleged father, and by L.--S H—C, the alleged mother. The special inquiry officer 'found, as the result of blood tests conducted in 

Seattle and in Chicago, that respondent is not the son of the alleged 

parents and is not, therefore, a United States citizen. He ordered 

respondent deported on the charges set forth above. Respondent 

appeals to this Board. 

Following his application fur a certificate of citizenship under 

section 341 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and at the 

request of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, respondent 

and his alleged parents cooperated in the performance of bloodgrouping tests. On December 17, 1956, respondent's alleged parents 

went to the King County Central Blood Bank,. Inc., Seattle, Washington, where they gave blood in accordance with standard bloodtesting procedures. On February 18, 1957, respondent gave blood 

for the same purpose in Chicago, Illinois, for tests supervised by 

Dr. Benjamin Neiman, pathologist. 

286 
The respondent and his alleged parents again cooperated in the 

performance of blood tests in 1960, under the supervision of the 

same pathologists and at the same laboratories. The certifications 

as to the test results from Seattle are signed by Dr. Frederick 

Kratz. This same pathologist testified as an expert in blood testing and classification in our unreported decision in Matter of WK—S—, A-8895043, sustained in Wong Ewok Sui v. Boyd, 285 F.2d 

572 (C.A. 9, 1960). 

The results of the tests performed at both laboratories on the 

second occasion are identical with the results of the first tests. 

Both sets of tests showed that the alleged father falls in blood 

group 0, and the alleged mother falls in blood group A, whereas 

the respondent is in blood group B. The expert testimony is uniform that an 0 and A mating cannot produce a B child. The B 

factor has to be inherited from one of the parents; it is passed in 

the genes from a parent, and it does not occur as an accident. 

The blood tests showed further that the alleged father is type M, 

the alleged mother is type M, and the respondent is MN. Medical 

evidence is consistent and uniform that an M and M mating cannot 

produce an MN child. The N factor must have come from one 

parent. 

During the course of these proceedings a number of statements 

were taken from the alleged parents, from respondent, and from 

his alleged godmother in Chicago. The parties were informed that 

tho blood-grouping tests show that there is no possibility of the 

claimed relationship between respondent and the alleged parents. 

The parties have continued to assert the claimed relationship. 

The special inquiry officer set forth in detail the results of the 

blood tests, the laboratory techniques employed, and the expert testimony on which he based his finding that respondent is not the 

son of the alleged parents. Dr. Neiman's qualifications as an expert 

in this field were conceded. He testified that the tests were made 

in his laboratory by two technicians working independently with 

different sera. Since two sets of tests were conducted each time, 

each test really was performed four times, with identical results 

each time. 

Counsel pleads that there could still have been mistakes in the 

laboratory procedure by which the blood samples were taken, identified, preserved and tested. We have examined the entire record 

with care and have concluded that the tests were performed according to standard, accepted laboratory techniques. In Matter of DTV-0— wad , 5---251 (United States ORT rel. Dong Wing 

Ott and Dong Wing Han v. Skaughnessy, 220 F.2d 537; 245 F.2d 

875; reaffirmed 247 F.2d 769 (C.A. 2, 1955-1957) ; cert. den. 350 

U S 847), we pointed out that the reason for duplicate tests is to 

287 
insure against, the possibility of error having been made in the first 

laboratory test or clerical error in submitting reports. We stated 

in that case, "In some cases even three series of tests have been 

performed in order to insure the accuracy of the results. It is 

recognized by the Government agencies that it is enormously important to applicants in such cases as these that the tests be accurately performed and reported" (p. 353). 

Counsel claims that Dr. Neiman was informed at the time of the 

second tests that these were duplicate tests and that the first tests, 

performed three years previously, had shown that respondent was 

not the son of the alleged parents. The record shows that Dr. Neiman testified (Oct. 3, 1960) that when he tested respondent on 

August 12, 1960, he did not know that it was the same case. He 

stated that the technicians were different, and he was not aware 

that this was a recheck until he received a communication from the 

Immigration Service informing him that this was a repetition. Ho 

testified that the findings on August 12, 1960, were identical with 

the findings on February 18, 1957. 

Counsel's brief refers to Matter of L—, 8-259 (B.I.A., Feb. 19, 

1959), wherein the expert witness testified that the child was 

excluded by the Rh tests, but that the "A–B-0 and M–N tests 

. provide no information as to the question of parentage." Counsel implies that there is an inconsistency between this testimony 

and the testimony of Dr. Neiman in the instant, case. Dr. Neiman 

states that he found an exclusion on the A–B-0 and M–N tests but 

says, "I am not referring to the Rh because that is not significant." 

The quote from Matter of L—, supra, is from Dr. Alexander 

Weiner's certification and is one sentence lifted out of context from 

an eleven-page decision involving a blood-testing situation much 

more complex than the case now before us. In prior decisions we 

have discussed the medical literature on this subject. Each of the 

blood systems (and new ones are becoming known) is independent 

of the other. An example that might be used is that the blood systems are similar to independent solar systems, coexisting simultaneously and each independent of the others.' All pathologists who 

1 "Medicolegal Application for Blood Grouping Tests," Report of the Committee of the Am. Med. Assn., 1952 (exh. 6, herein), says, "To date, more 

than eight independent blood group systems have been identified." In Criminal Law Review, Autumn 1956, Vol. 3, No. 1, "Application of Blood Tests in 

Criminal Cases," Dr. Alexander Weiner reters to tne use of aii imown practical tests, including the "f" and "p" systems and gives an example of a 

person with 0, MN, Rh 1Rh1 , f, p. He states that the chalice of another person having this identical blood would be about 1 in 300, whereas if only the 

A-B-O lest was used, the chance of cuineltlenee lu the popubstliuu could be as 

high as 40%. He says that in tests on fresh human blood more than 50,000 

types of blood can be distinguished. 

288 
hive testified in the cases that have come to the Board agree, - and 

all medical evidence we have been able to discover establishes, that 

an exclusion of paternity may be shown by the tests in routine 

medicolegal use relating to any one of the three blood systems. Incompatibility of blood may be demonstrated by any one of the tests, 

or by all of the tests. It is conceivable that the blood of a child 

could be so carefully matched to that of the alleged parents that 

the hick of parentage., and thus the fraud, might not be discoverable by any of these methods. Obviously, such blood matching 

would be difficult. There is no inconsistency between the certification of Dr. Weiner in 111(ttter of 8-259, and the testimony of 

Dr. Neiman here. The cases are different. 

Our decision is bound by the blood-test results. In the past six 

years we have held in decisions concerning approximately fifty-five 

separate persons that blood -test evidence is conclusive when it is 

satisfactorily established that the tests have been conducted by 

competent and experienced persons, and where the tests establish 

the impossibility of the claimed relationship. Matter of L—F—F—, 

5-149 (1953) ; Matter of W—K—S— and W—P—S—, 5-232 

(1953) ; Matter of D—W-0— and D—W—H—, 5 351, 356 (1953, 

1954) ; Matter of L—C—S—, 6-212 (1954). In Matter -of L—, 

8--259, we cited a number Of court decisions sustaining the findings of 

the Board in these cases and accepting the conclusiveness of properly 

conducted blood tests.. In addition to the decisions set forth in Matte,. 

of L—, supra (which we will not repeat here), there are three new decisions, as follows: Lew Moon Cheung v. Rogers. 272 F. 2d 354 (C.A. 

9, 1959) ; Wong Kwok Sui v. Boyd, 285 F.2d 572 (C.A. 9, 1960) 

(cited above), sustaining our unreported decision in Matter of WK—S—, A-8895043 (May 18, 1959) ; Wong Yoke Sing v. Dulles. 

151 F. Supp. 459 (D.C. N.Y., 1957). These cases hold that bloodgrouping tests, when they establish that a claithant to citizenship 

is not the child of the alleged parents, constitute clear, unequivocal 

and convincing evidence that warrants disregard of prior decisions 

admitting him as a United States citizen. 

• In Lew Moon Cheung v. Rogers, supra, the court admitted the 

reports of blood tests made at United States Public Health Service clinics under 28 U.S.C. 1732 as records made in the regular 

course of business at the time of or shortly after the occurrence of 

the event. The court stated that. it was part of the regular course 

of business, and was within the inherent nature of the business of 

the San Pedro Clinic, to make blood tests for other Government 

agencies who recitiest such tests. Wong If wok 'Sui v. Boyd, frup,,,a, 

held that the original admission of the appellant into the United 

States as a citizen did not, constitute' an estoppel against the Government, and that the blood-test evidence "would pass as a prepon289 

q54377 
derance, as clear, cogent and convincing, or as beyond a reasonable 

doubt." The court continued: 

Sui's wain point goes to the adequacy of the evidence and involves the qualifications of one Dr. Vio in Hong Kong to take a sample of Fung's blood in 

Hong Kong and to classify it. [At the hearing, the significance of the Hong 

Kong tests were testified to by a Tlr. 1Zratz of the United .States Public 

Health Service. It was he who found the incompatibility. Dr. Vio did not 

testify as to the significance of the three blood types found in the alleged 

father, mother and son.] We have examined the depositions and are satisfied his competence was adequately established. We rest our appraisal on 

the reenrd, and not upon what is not there. However, when we have done 

that, we feel better about our decision when we know that Sui did nothing 

on his part to get proof that Fung's blood type was not as Dr. Vio found it 

and did nothing to contradict expertly the Government's evidence as to he 

significance of the types. 

The fact that Sui's blood was compatible with Quong's, the alleged father's 

(a citizen), does not raise a presumption that he was the son of Quong when 

Sui claims he was the son of Quong and Fung, where an impossible compatibility of the three blood types exists. At this point in the sequence, we 

hold the burden then shifted to Sui. At least as a minimum, Sui would have 

the problem of finding another mother. 

Sui asserts the evidence on the blood testing is conflicting. If so, we might 

reverse, but we do not find it so. [Our decision is in accord with Lew Moon 

Cheung v. Rogers, 9 Cir., 272 F.2d 354. And this court regards its results 

herein as wholly consistent with Lee Kum Hop v. Murff, 355 U.S. 169.] 

We have quoted at length irom the Circuit Court's decision in 

Wang Kwok Sui v. Boyd, supra, because it does not, as yet, appear 

to be reported, and it is entirely applicable to the set of facts now 

before us. 

It is no coincidence that respondent lived with the alleged parents in Seattle for only a few weeks or a month after his arrival 

in the United States in 1947. Respondent and his alleged parents 

testified that following their arrival in Seattle they lived in very 

cramped quarters -and soon sent respondent, a boy of 10, to live 

with his "godmother" in Chicago. The alleged father and mother 

both testified that they did not blow this woman except as 

"J—S—"; that she is unrelated to them; that they have never seen 

her; and they have never seen respondent since he left them in the 

early part of 1948. The alleged father testified (Apr. 2, 1957) that 

his wife's mother made the arrangements for the boy to go to Chicago and that he has paid no support money to J—S— for his son. 

The alleged mother also testified (Dec. 14, 1956, Seattle) that J—S 

was a friend of her mother's; that it was through her mother's 

recommendation that their first son went to Chicago to live; and 

that the boy has never been back to Seattle. 

The godmother, J—S—, testified (Aug. 12, 1957) that she met 

the alleged mother in China when L S—H---C— was a girl of eight 

or nine, that she had seen L—S—H—C—'s mother in China but had 

290 
mover tallecd with her and was not b. close friend_ The alleged god 

mother testified further that negotiations as to respondent were 

carried on between herself and the alleged mother by phone; that 

she did not make the arrangements to take respondent through the 

grandmother in China ; that she does not even know where the 

grandmother lives. 

Respondent could answer no questions regarding the family of 

his alleged father and mother, their brothers and sisters. lie said 

he answered these questions when he came into the United States 

but since he had not seen his father and mother in 13 years he has 

forgotten the answers by now. 

It should be noted, also, that at the time respondent was born 

on July 18, 1938, the alleged father would have been 16 years of age, 

and the alleged mother was not yet 16. The alleged father's claimed 

birth date is April 8, 1922; the alleged mother's claimed birth date is 

October 27, 1922. They claim to have been married in February 

1937. The alleged father testified (Seattle, Apr. 2, 1957) that they 

were married in a church but he could not remember whether 

there were other people in the church, whether there were one or 

two, or fifty, or one hundred people in the church. He could not 

remember the name or location of the church or whether• any of 

his or his wife's relatives were present. The alleged mother testified that there were ten people present at her marriage, and no 

relative of hers nor of her husband. 

On December 14, 1956, L—S H C the alleged mother, testi - 

fied that respondent lived with them in Seattle, following their 

entry, for one year. At all other times the alleged parents and 

the godmother testified that he lived in Seattle a few weeks or a 

month or two. 

Under the circumstances of this case, even without the blood 

tests, it would he difficult to believe that respondent is the child 

of the alleged parents. They have had three children since they 

arrived in the United States, and all three children live with them 

in Seattle. The special inquiry officer did not discuss the discrepancies in the record because of the prior holding of this Board that 

blood tests demonstrating incompatibility of blood between a claimant and alleged parents constitute conclusive evidence of lack of 

relationship. We have mentioned the discrepancies and other suspicious elements in the record merely for makeweight, as we have 

clone, also, in other cases involving blood-test evidence. 

The blood tests in this case were performed by oualified technicians;and they were rechecked according to accepted laboratory 

procedures. The test results were interpreted by a pathologist whose 

qualifications were not challenged. His conclusions are consistent 

with all the medical evidence that has come to our attention. The 

291 
blood tests constitute dear and convincing evidence that respondent 

is not the son of the alleged parents. We recognize the misfortune 

of uprooting respondent, who has adapted well to life in the United 

States, but he is not a United States citizen and, under the law, 

was not entitled to admission as the son of a citizen. 

The application for adjustment of status under section 245 of the. 

Immigration and Nationality Act is not within the jurisdiction of 

the Board. Respondent at least should be given the opportunity to 

depart voluntarily which has been granted in other similar cases. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the outstanding order of deportation 

be withdrawn and the alien be permitted to depart from the United 

States voluntarily without, expense to the Government, to any country of his choice, within such period of time and under such conditions as the officer in charge of the district deems appropriate. 

It is further ordered that if the alien does not depart from the 

United States in accordance with the foregoing, the oricier.of deportation be reinstated and executed. 

292