MATTER OF L 

In DEPORTATION Proceedings 

A-10635395 

Decided by Board February 19, 1959 

Evidence—Blood-grouping tests—Exclusion of parentage through Rh system. 

As with the A-B-O and M-N systems, the same conclusive effect is given Rh 

blood-grouping tests which exclude paternity when the test results are consistent and uncontroverted and the interpretation is made by a recognized 

authority. 

CHARGE : 

Order : Act of 1952—Section 2-11(a) (1) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (1)1—Excludable 

at time of entry—No immigrant visa. 

BEFORE THE HOARD 

Discussion: Respondent is a native of China, 29 years of age, who 

was admitted to the United States on April 21, 1956, as the United 

States citizen son of L Y W , a citizen of the United 

States. Following his admission he filed an application for a certificate of citizenship. The special inquiry officer found, following a 

hearing, that recently - dovelop,1 evidence,e:Aablilhea that the respond 

ent is an alien, a native and citizen of China, that he was not entitled 

to enter the United States as a citizen and is, therefore, deportable on 

the charge contained in the order to show cause. Respondent appeals to this Board from the order of deportation. 

Following his application for a certificate of citizenship, and at 

the request of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, respondent and his alleged parents were asked to cooperate in the performance of blood-grouping tests. On September 28, 1956, accompanied 

by an immigrant inspector, they went to the Western Laboratories 

in San Francisco, California, where blood Samples were taken fur 

the purpose of establishing the groups, types and factors in the 

blood of respondent and his alleged parents. These tests are designed 

to establish the possibility or impossibility of the claimed parentage 

or relationhip between respondent and the alleged parents. The 

pathologist who supervised the tests was Dr. Leonard Ortega, who 

later testified as to his own qualifications, described the techniques 

259 
used in his laboratory, and the meaning of the test results and of 

the forms filled out and signed by him, part of exhibit 2. 

On July 8, 1057, respondent and his alleged parents again cooperated in the performance of blood tests at the Latham Square Laboratories in Oakland, California, accompanied by Mr. H K 

their attorney. Dr. Paul Steiner later testified as to his own qualifications as a pathologist. He was not questioned by anyone regarding the methods used in his laboratory or the circumstances under 

which the tests wore made. Ho wax not naked whether he performed 

these tests or supervised their performance. 

The results of the tests performed at both laboratories are identical. It was conceded by the examining officer and by counsel for the 

respondent that the interpretation of the test results is the primary 

issue in this case. The special inquiry officer stated to the attorney 

that it was his understanding that the Government contends that 

respondent is not the son of the alleged parents, and that counsel 

contends that he is the son of the alleged parents, anti "that is the 

issue." Both counsel and the examining officer agreed to that statement, of the case. The special inquiry officer stated further, "Then 

as I understand it there is no issue as to the accuracy or the methods 

used in the blood-grouping tests?" Counsel and the examining officer agreed there was no such issue. 

We have had several eases wherein the testers for varying reasons 

had arrived at different results, but this is the first blood-grouping 

case to our knowledge wherein the test results are the same, but the 

testimony of two pathologists is conflicting as to the meaning of 

the tests. The findings of the two laboratories are reported in different forms, even though they purport to state the same test rhsults. 

It is our opinion that the table appearing in Dr. Weiner's letter is 

most easily comprehended by nonmedical persons. (Dr. Alexander 

Weiner was chosen by both parties as arbiter, as we shall relate.) 

He states: 

The findings of the two doctors may be summarized as in the table 

below: 

Blood of- Group M-N type Rh-Tir type 

Y—w—L—(putative father). 0 MN ROSS 

(putative mother) A MN RhIRbl 

J e3yon.ac.t) A 

Dr. Ortega testified that following his graduation from medical 

school he had extensive training and experience in the field of pathology, that he supervised laboratories and blood banks in Texas and 

California, that he is at present an instructor of pathology at the 

University of California School of Medicine, that he has performed 

hundreds of blood typings for the purposes of transfusions, for the 

260 
identification of blood stains in criminal proceedings, and for one, 

to two hundred cases involving disputed paternity. He was asked 

who in his opinion were the outstanding authorities in the field of 

blood grouping and testing, and he named Dr. Alexander Weiner 

of New York, Dr. Race in England and Dr. Philip Levine in New 

Jersey. He testified that an exclusion of paternity may be demonstrated as the result of tests concerning any one of the three blood 

systems used for this purpose in routine medicolegal use. He stated 

that the first tests used in paternity cases concern the A-B-O system, 

next the M-N system, and last the Rh-Hr system, and that all the 

tests used demonstrate results which Lure firm barer in genetic law. 

He testified that the tests made in the instant case were actually performed four times in his laboratory, twice by each of two different 

technicians. The tooth wore repeated beenvme they discovered there 

was an exclusion of parentage. He testified that the test results 

establish that respondent cannot be the child of the alleged father 

and mother, and that the exclusion of paternity was not discoverable 

through the A-B-O or the M-N tests but is established by the Rh-Hr 

tests. 

Dr. Ortega testified that respondent, the alleged son, has in his 

blood the factor rh', and that both parents "are negative for this 

factor." He stated, "For this factor to appear in a child it has to be 

present in one or both parents. It is simply a matter of heredity 

that the child cannot have something that neither parent has" He 

was asked, "Doctor, is it your opinion that this is a conclusive finding?" He answered, "In my opinion, yes, it is a conclusive finding." 

On cross-examination Dr. Ortega's testimony reads as follows: 

Q. And if I were to tell you, Doctor, that I had a statement in writing by 

a pathologist who presumably is well qualified to the effect that he is not 

prepared to say that paternity is excluded in this case on the basis of the Ith 

factor, what comment would you navel 

A. My comment would be that this pathologist is certainly at variance with 

practically every other serologist in the world. 

Counsel called Dr. Paul Steiner, who testified to his medical school, 

graduate school, and special training in pathology. He testified that 

he is assistant pathologist and consultant pathologist to a number 

of laboratories and institutions in the San Francisco area, including 

the Veterans Administration and Mare Island Naval Hospital. He 

was asked to name the outstanding experts in the field of blood 

grouping, and he named the same three experts named by Dr. Ortega : 

Dr. Alexander Weiner, Dr. Race (whom lie referred to as RaceSanger, apparently a team) in England, and Dr. Philip Levine. 

Dr. Ortega and Dr. Steiner testified separately, not in the presence 

of one another, and approximately two weeks apart. Dr. Steiner 

referred briefly to the A-B-O and H-N systems and then discussed 

at length the Rh system and the differences in nomenclature with 

261 
regard to that system, describing the C, D, E, c, d, e designations 

developed by the British doctors Race and Sanger, and the Rh-hr 

symbols, developed by Dr. Weiner in this country. Dr. Steiner prefers to use the designations C, D, E, e, d and e for purposes of simplicity, rather than the Rh-hr designations. The subject of bloodgroup nomenclature is discussed in the "Supplementary Report of 

the Committee on Medicolegal Problems, American Medical Association," reprinted from the Journal of the American Medical A SSOe-i,etton, August 31, 1917, vol. 101., pp. 2030-2014. It is a controversy 

with which we need not concern ourselves here. 

Dr. Steiner testified that exclusion of paternity based on what he 

terms the big factor (oh") alone is ton ciontroversial to be fair. 

He considers it to be "a matter of doubt." It is his belief that the 

"big E factor" may consist of several factors, and that not enough 

is known about it at this time to justify basing an exclusion of paternity on that test. He quoted from several publications he believes 

support his view. He read from the American Journal of Human 

Genetics, December 1952, an article by Dr. Weiner, whom he quotes 

as saying, "The existence of individuals with the red cells lacking 

both factors Rh" and He has an important implication for the 

medical-legal application of these tests in cases of disputed parentage, and this could lead to erroneous csvolusiono of parentage." It 

seems to us that this statement is not pertinent to the instant case. 

These persons are not lacking both Rh" and He; the respondent's 

blood has in it the factor Rh" and, judging from Dr. Steiner's own 

test reports, he found the reaction to the anti-e (hr") serum to be 

"positive as to all three parties." The tests done by Dr. Ortega did 

not include the "e" (hr") test which is not recommended by the 

American Medical Association Committee. 

Dr. Steiner continued his testimony by reading from the Supplementary Report of the Committee on Medicolegal Problems, American Medical Association, referred to above. The Committee consisted 

of Dr. Weiner, Chairman, and three other persons. Assuming the 

record we have to be correct, Dr. Steiner did not read the report 

accurately. The record we have quotes him as follows: 

* • * and finally the Journal of the American Medical Association of August 31, 1957 in a report of the Committee on Medical-Legal Problems in an 

article Medical Logal Applications of aloud arollpinp: Tools. save here. With 

regard to the Rh system and particularly to the Rh" factor obviously the 

medical-legal application of such factors is premature. Indeed because the 

lack of availability of adequate amounts of suitable anti-serums and the limited knowledge due to the small number of investigations carried out to date 

the routine use in medical-legal work of the Factors Rh" is inadvisable.' 

(Emphasis added.) 

The report Dr. Steiner quotes from was not placed in evidence. 

The special inquiry officer should have requested that it be made 

262 
part of the record. However, the report is available to us and it is 

clear that Dr. Steiner misread the paragraph quoted, and taken out 

of context the meaning is changed. The quoted paragraph, in tote, 

read an follows: 

Recent work has revealed the existence of still other factors belonging to 

the Rh-Hr system, notably, factor V, often found associated with the genes r 

and R., especially in Negroes. In addition, a series of new Rh factors has 

been discovered that, with rare exceptions, occur in association with the factor 

Rho(similar to the association of factor rhw with rh') and that have tentatively been designated as IthA, Rh; and so forth. Obviously, the medicolegal 

oppnestion of spot) factors is premature. Indeed. because of the lack of availability of adequate amounts of suitable anti-serums and the limited knowledge 

due to the small number of investigations carried out to date, the routine use 

in medicolegal work of factors rh., hr", and hr is inadvisable. This Committoo recoassueudg, theref ore, shot for rnntine medicolegal work. for the present. 

the Rh-Hr test be limited to the factors Rh o , rh', rh", and he. (Emphasis 

added.) 

The Committee report had already discussed the fact that there 

are at the present time four principal Rh blood factors and three 

principal Hr factors recognized. It states, "However, anti-serums 

for only four of these seven factors are readily available for routine 

clinical and medicolegal work, namely, anti-Rh o, anti-rh', anti-rh", 

and anti-hi." The report discusses many rh and hr factors, some 

of them rarely encountered, and clearly is discussing these, factors 

in the paragraph road by Dr. Steiner (quoted above) when they 

recommend that the tests for the rare and newly-discovered factors 

not be used in routine medicolegal work. The Committee again says, 

"As has already been pointed out, in medicolegal cases the paternity 

blood tests are generally limited to the factors Rh., rh', rh" and hr'. 

Actually many more Rh-Hr factors have been found." 

Dr. Steiner again quoted from the Summary and Conclusions of 

the Committee (Supplementary Report), "It is recommended that 

routine medicolegal applications of blood grouping be restricted at 

present to tests for the four blood groups, 0, A, B, and AB of the 

A-B-O system; the three types M, N, and MN of the M-N-S- system; 

and factors Rh., rh', rh", and hr' of the Rh-Hr system." Dr. 

Steiner's comment on this recommendation is, "Now here they omit 

expressly the factor hr" which is the one present in the two parents." 

This seems to us to be a non sequitur, since the exclusion of paternity 

in this case is not based upon the presence of the factor hr" in the 

two parents, found by Dr. Steiner's tests. This is one of the factors 

for which the Committee of the American Medical Association 

recommends routine tests not be made. The exclusion here is based 

upon the fact that the element rh" is present in respondent's blood 

and is not present in the blood of the alleged parents. 

It is not necessary for us to attempt to resolve the conflict between 

the conclusions of Dr. Steiner and Dr. Ortega. When it became 

263 
apparent to the special inquiry officer, counsel, and the examining 

officer that the two doctors had conflicting opinions, the examining 

officer asked Dr. Steiner if he felt that. Dr. Weiner is the outstanding authority in this field in this country, and if Dr. Steiner would 

accept Dr. Weiner's word as final in this case if the tests were submitted to him for decision. Dr. Steiner answered, "Yes I do, not 

the only one but one of the outstanding authorities. Dr. Philip 

Levine is probably equally qualified, but he is not as flamboyant as 

Dr. -Weiner is * * *." The examining officer then moved that the 

testimony of the two witnesses and the two sets of tests be submitted 

to Dr. Weiner for a final opinion. Counsel stated that he had no 

objection to that and stipulated that lie was willing to be bound by 

the results of Dr. Weiner's opinion. The examining officer also so 

stipulated. 

Dr. Weiner's letter addressed to the Immigration and Naturalization Service at New York, July 16, 1958, signed and notarized, is 

exhibit 3 in the record. Dr. Weiner's table summarizing the results 

of the blood-grouping tests herein has been set forth above, and will 

not be repeated here. The rest of Dr. Weiner's certifacatiuu reads as 

follows: 

Mr. E— also— showed me the records of the above-named case including the report of Dr. L. R. Ortoge of the Western Laboratories in flohlond, 

California, the report of Dr. Paul S. Steiner of the Latham Square Laboratories of Oakland, California, and the testimony of Dr. L. K. Ortega and Dr. 

P. Steiner, all of which I have read, There appears to be no dispute about 

the results of the blood tests themselves, but only regarding the interpretation 

of the findings. While it is against my principles to offer an opinion based 

on tests which I have not done myself, in the present ease, according to the 

testimony, the tests were done many times, always with the same results, as 

that it would be uareaooaablo to challenge the findings. 

As far as the A-B-O and M-N tests are concerned the results provide no 

Information as to the question of parentage. The Rh-Hr tests, however, show 

that J-K L cannot be the child of I W L and 

Y L L . The reason for this is that two parents both lacking factor 

tit" (otherwise known as factor E) cannot have a child with factor rh" (or 

E). In the present case the putative father X W L— is type Itlugh 

lacking factor rb" (or E) and the putative mother, M I L— L is 

type RhiIthi lacking factor rh", while the putative son, J K L is 

type Rhiithzhaving factor rh". Therefore J—K—L------ is not the son 

of Cho putatiro pax Onto, Y w L and br Y— L L 

The hearing was reconvened on September 18, 1958, in San Francisco, at which time counsel objected to the acceptance in evidence 

of Dr. Weiner's report "on the ground that the witness has impeached 

himself." Counsel, admittedly basing his opinion on the "quoted 

remarks of Dr. Weiner" as read into the record of hearing by Dr. 

Steiner, states that he believed "that Dr. Weiner would rule out 

exclusion of paternity on the basis of the big E factor of the Rh." 

004 
Counsel continued, "However, since Dr. Weiner has now repudiated 

what he was quoted as saying the previous time I don't feel bound 

by the stipulation * * *" (emphasis added). It is apparent that 

counsel did nnt gtudy the report, of the Committee of the American 

Medical Association himself, but based his opinion on the reading 

of it by Dr. Steiner. If our copy of this report is correct, then 

Dr. Steiner's reading of it cannot be correct. 

The special inquiry officer felt that both parties were bound by 

their stipulation, and accepted Dr. Weiner's opinion into the record 

over counsel's objection, pointing out that Dr. Weiner had been 

agreed upon by both parties as arbiter. A good statement on the 

effect of a stipulation is available in Matter of 4 I. & N. Dec. 

378, 384 (C.O., May 10, 1951), wherein it was concluded that the 

decision as to whether or not the parties are bound by a stipulation 

rests with the court, and that the court may, in its discretion, set 

aside a stipulation on numerous grounds, such as fraud, undue influence, collusion, mistake, false statement innocently made, inadvertence or improvidence in making the stipulation (Wigmore on Evidence, vol. IX (3rd ed.), sec. 2590). Since these are administrative 

proceedings, and since citizenship is a precious right, we would not 

permit anyone to stipulate away his citizenship, if we believed that 

the record supported a finding of United States citizenship. In the 

present case the effect of the stipulation is unimportant, because the 

report of Dr. Weiner is admissible, in any event. Obtaining Dr. 

Weiner's opinion was a satisfactory solution to the impasse existing 

at the close of the June 16th hearing. Dr. Weiner's certifications 

have been accepted by us in a number of cases, and he has been 

named in other similar proceedings as the ultimate authority on the 

subject. 

The Supplemental Report of the American Medical Association 

referred to the subject of the qualifications of experts as "a difficult 

and unsolved problem requiring serious study." It was found necessary in New York City to set up a special panel for this purpose. 

When blood tests were commenced in New York in 1953, persons to 

be tested were permitted to choose their own doctors for this purpose. 

Following complaints of inaccuracy of test results and overcharging, 

it was discovered that the judges of the Court of Special Sessions, 

after consultation with the New York Academy of Medicine, had 

approved a panel of six doctors to conduct blood tests in paternity 

proceedings before the mutt_ The hiunizration and Naturalization 

Service decided to follow the same procedure and to request the person whose blood was to be tested to choose one of the doctors from 

this same panel. The panel at that time included Dr. Alexander 

Weiner, Dr. Philip Levine, and Dr. Sussman. 

This is not the first case in which we have had certified an exclusion of paternity based on Rh tests alone, although the others are 

265 
all unpublished cases. In unreported Matter of TV- TV Y , 

A-10236058, blood tests were performed by Dr. Leon Sussman, New 

York, and he certified on January 26, 1954, that the tests demonstrated that it was impossible for respondent to be the offspring of 

the two persons claimed to be his parents, inasmuch as this child 

had a blood factor, rh", which he must have inherited from one of 

his parents, and as neither of the claimed parents had this 

blood factor, parentage could be excluded. In L S Y , 

A 7673112, unreported (May 10, 1051), Dr. Iora9,1 Davidcohn, Chicago, found an exclusion based on the hr' factor. Later, following 

a blood test of the mother, he found a triple exclusion, based also 

on the N and rh" factors. Dr. Davidsohn was a member of the 

Committee of the American Medical Association which wrote the 

report on blood-grouping tests in 1952, which evidences no hesitation 

about using Rh-Hr tests for these purposes. In unreported Matter 

of L S L , A 10292624, Dr. Sussman (in a report dated 

December 22, 1954) certified an exclusion of paternity based on the 

Rh test alone. 

It is important in these cases to be able to rely on the Rh test. 

It is possible for a person seeking a purchaser for a previously 

established "immigration slot" to match the blood groups and types 

of a candidate to those of the alleged father and mother, particularly 

if the alleged father and mother fall in the common groups and 

types, as in this case. Here we have an 0 father and an A mother. 

They can have either 0 or A children and this covers approximately 

87 percent of the population. According to the MN typing we have 

an MN father and MN mother. They can have M, N, or MN children, and this is 100 percent of the population . Therefore, in the 

instant case the A- B-0 tests are of limited value, and the MN tests 

are useless. However, with Rh tests added to 0-A-B and M-N tests, 

blood matching becomes much more difficult. 

Even with the use of Rh tests it is not possible to solve all cases 

Of doubtful parentage. In a report of the Committee on Medicolegal 

Problems, American Medical Association, 1952 (p. 12), the Committee stated, "When a man is falsely accused of paternity, he has better 

than a 50 percent chance of being exonerated by the combined use 

of the A-B-0, M-N, and Rh-Hr tests, while more than 90 percent of 

cases of interchange of infants can be solved by such tests." The 

factor rh" is the factor which respondent has which his parents do 

not have. We note that the Supplemental Report of the American 

Medical Association Committee, 1057, mentions that the factor rh" 

occurs in less than .5 percent of the population. When the claimant 

possesses a relatively unusual blood factor, blood matching becomes 

most difficult. 

The special inquiry officer denied the request of counsel to offer 

the testimony of respondent's alleged father, holding that counsel 

9011 
was bound by his stipulation that there was no issue in the case but 

the interpretation to be given the blood-grouping tests. We feel 

that the special inquiry officer's denial of this request was unnecesawry, but does not constitute prejudicial error sufficient in require 

reopening of the record. The alleged father's testimony probably 

would not have lengthened the record unduly. But neither could 

it influence our decision, which is bound by the test results. In the 

past six years we have held repeatedly 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 conclusively establish the impossibility of the claimed relationship. Matter of L F—F—, 5 I. & N. Dec. 149 (1953); 

Matter of W K—S--- and IV P—S , 5 L& N. Dec. 

232 (1903) ; Matter of D TV 0 and D IF , 

5 I. & N. Dec. 351, 356 (1953, 1954); Matter of L C S—, 

6 I. & N. Dec. 212 (1954). These decisions have been sustained in 

the courts for the most part.' When the courts have found citizenship in spite of blood tests demonstrating non-existence of the claimed 

relationship, it has been for a procedural defect (Dulles v. QUa#1 

Yoke Fong, 237 F. 2e1 496 (C.A. 9, 1936) ) ; or for a failure of the 

Government to establish the qualifications of the technician (Chin 

Wing Gwong v. Dulles, 139 F. Supp. 116 (D.C.R.I., 1956) ). 

Counsel complains that he was not permitted to cross-examine 

Dr. Weiner, and therefore should not be bound by Dr. -Weiner's 

certification. Counsel had two blood-test experts for examination 

and cross-examination. Examination of experts in these cases has 

gone largely to the matter of the accuracy of the testing procedure, 

proper identification of the parties (to eliminate the possibility of 

substitution), adequate supervision of laboratory workers, and the 

general acceptance of blisnrEtristing procedure and results for medical 

and legal purposes. Cross-examination would serve no purpose here, 

because all parties conceded Dr. Weiner's qualifications and agreed 

to an acceptance of his interpretation. Until Dr. Weiner's determination was unfavorable to respondent, counsel was willing to submit 

the issue of the true meaning of the test results to him. 

Counsel protests that in Matter of DW 0 and D 

TV H—, 5 I. & N. Dec. 351, at page 361, Dr. Weiner is quoted 

United States en re/. Done Wing Ott v. Shaughnessy, 220 F.2d 537, 245 

F.24 875, reaff. 247 F.2d 769 (CA. 2, 1955-1957) ; United States ex rel. Lee 

Kern Boy, et at. v. shaughnessy, ma a. Supp. 302, 123 a. Bui,p. Cris (o.o.r.r.y,, 

1953-1955), 237 F.2d 307 (CA. 2, 1956), 352 U.S. 966; United States ex re/. 

Lee Kern Hay v. Merff, 355 U.S. 169; Lee Chow Ken v. Brownell, 122 F. Supp. 

370, 220 F.24 187 (CA. 2, 1055), 148 F. Supp. 3, 245 F.2d 874 (CA. 2, 1957); 

Jew Jock Keen v. Males, 139 F. Supp. 205 (S.D. Texas, 1955) ; Get v. Dulles, 

154 F. Supp. 577 (E.D.N.Y., 1957) ; Wong Fuel) Ping v. Dulles, 137 F. Supp. 

470 (D.C. Mass., 1956); Lett Moose Cheung v. Rogers, (D.C. Calif., November 

12, 1958). 

267 
by us as having said that for the purposes of testifying in legal 

proceedings he prefers not to rely on the conclusions drawn from 

tests made by other persons but prefers to make his own tests. Dr. 

Weiner's letter, exhibit 3 in this record, states that he prefers to 

conduct the tests himself, but where, as in the instant case, the test 

results are consistent and only the interpretation is at - issue, he is 

willing to make an interpretation. We fail to see any ground here 

for a valid objection. 

As counsel points out, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

has held that where the Immigration Service has admitted a claimant as a citizen the burden necessary to overcome the prior admitting 

decisions falls on the Government. Lee Hon Lung v. Dudes, 261 

F.2d 719 (C.A. 9, 1938)_ The Ninth eirenit else held in Re Ng 

v. Browned, 258 F.2d 304 (C.A. 9, 1958), that the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion in determining (among other findings) that the 

blood tests were reliable and "should be given great weight." 

To recapitulate: It is our conclusion that blood-test evidence presented here, consisting of the test results which are consistent and 

uncontroverted, and interpreted by an unimpeachable expert to establieu' exclusion of paternity, must be accepted by us. Clearly, Dr. 

Steiner does not agree with the American Medical Association Committee Reports of 1952 and 1957, but evidently he stands alone in 

his opinion that the blood factor rh" is too controversial to serve 

as a basis for an exclusion of paternity. The record does not establish Dr. Steiner as a recognized authority in the field. The writings 

referred to by him and counsel do not support his view. On the 

contrary, they support the view of Dr. Ortega, Dr. Weiner, and 

other authorities. The warnings and exceptions set forth in the 

American Medical Association Subcommittee reports refer to blood 

factors other than the rh" factor present here. Any errors committed 

in the hearing were not prejudicial errors sufficient to require reopening and rehearing. The blood tests constitute clear and convincing 

evidence that the respondent is not the son of the alleged father. 

Therefore, he is not a United States citizen. The appeal will be 

dismissed. 

Order: It is ordered that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed. 

268