Matter of C----Y----L----
| Citation | 9 I&N Dec. 286 |
| Decision Date | 23 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | A-10672544. |
| Parties | MATTER OF C----Y----L----. In DEPORTATION Proceedings. |
| Court | U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals |
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 for 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 blood-grouping 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 blood-testing procedures. On February 18, 1957, respondent gave blood for the same purpose in Chicago, Illinois, for tests supervised by Dr. Benjamin Neiman, pathologist.
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 W----K----S----, A-8895043, sustained in Wong Kwok 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 O, and the alleged mother falls in blood group A, whereas the respondent is in blood group B. The expert testimony is uniform that an O 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 the 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 D----W----O---- and D----W----H----, 5-351 (United States ex rel. Dong Wing Ott and Dong Wing Han v. Shaughnessy, 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 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, (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. He 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-O 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-O 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.1 All pathologists who have 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 lack 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 Matter of L----, 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----O---- 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 Matter of L----, supra (), 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial