All posts by Trish Hackett Nicola

Lee Ah Jung & Wong Gun Fook – Helena, Montana

application for citizen's return certificate, Application for Pre-investigation Status, Application for return certificate as merchant, Board of Special Inquiry, Group Photo, passport, San Francisco file, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The file for Lee Ah Jung starts in May 1919. It refers to an 1889 U.S. District Court of California certified judgment file in San Francisco for Lee Ah Jung and his wife Wong Gun Fook. Copies of the judgment are not included in this file but were sent to San Francisco for review and to certify their correctness. Lee Ah Jung was applying for a passport as a United States citizen. Wong Gun Fook’s birth certificate was included in the packet. Lee Ah Jung arrived at the port of San Francisco on 16 May 1898 on the S.S. Doric.

The San Francisco immigration officer could not find any files on Lee Ah Jung and Wong Gun Fook for the dates given. They did find an arrival date for Wong Gum Fook (SF file 10282/107) with her alleged mother Chin Shee (SF file 10282/106), and her brother Wong How (SF file 10282/4463) on 7 October 1908. Wong Lung (SF file 9778/152), husband of Chin Shee, and father of Wong Gun Fook, appeared as a witness for them.

“Lee Ah Jung family photo,” 1919, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Lee Ah Jung and Wong Gun Fook, Box H002, Helena file 3/1112. 
Lee Ah Jung, Wong Gun Fook, Lee How Kun/Kum (1), Lee Fong Hoe/Hai (2), Lee Gin Wah (3), Lee Tai Ling (4), and Lee Gat/Goat Oye (5)
The immigration inspector signed his name across the photo. It looks like the stockings for Lee Gin Wah #3 have a pattern but it is the signature.

Their documents were sent to the Bureau of Immigration in Washington, DC, but on 3 June 1919, but their Immigration Officer wrote to Immigration office in Helena informing them that they had not followed proper procedures to obtain the necessary papers for Lee Ah Jung and family to travel to China. They listed five points that needed to be corrected or improved.

  1. The Bureau of Immigration does not issue passports. The State Department requires proper requests.
  2. Return certificates have not been requested for investigation.
  3. Requests for pre-investigation of status have not been received.
  4. The Bureau has not received birth information on Lee Ah Jung’s wife or children.
  5. It is customary to examine all applicants for return certificates.

Wong Gun Fook was interviewed in Helena, Montana on 24 June 1919. She was 27 years old, born on the 3rd floor of a building on Dupont Street in San Francisco in April, but she was not sure of the day or year. Her parents were living. Her father was in San Francisco, and her mother was living in Canton City, China. Her only sibling, a brother, died many years ago. The last time she saw her father was in during the 1915 San Francisco Exposition. She married Lee Ah Jung in San Francisco according to Chinese custom in 1909 and then moved to Helena, Montana. They had five children, all born in Helena from 1910 to 1918 and had all of their birth certificates. Phil Baldwin, the examining inspector, asked Wong Gun Fook to identity the people in an old group photo. She said they were her father, Wong Lung, her mother, Chin She, and herself at about seven years old. Baldwin thought the photo was a good likeness of her even though it was taken when Wong Gun Fook was a child. That photo was not included in the file but there was a recent photo of Wong Gun Fook with her husband and their five children. During her interview Fook described her former home in Canton, China, as a big house with four rooms facing south on Hung Dock Street and 4th Alley with an outside door and four inside doors.

Lee Ah Jung was interviewed the same day as his wife and his 1889 court discharge papers were examined. He was born in San Francisco, and his marriage name was Lee Hing Sing. His family was from Hen Kai, a small village about thirty-five miles from the coast in China. It had about nine or ten houses, all homes of his relatives. He explained who lived where, the direction their house was facing, and the names of their children. He was asked if he was going to adopt and children when he was in China. He said, “No, Sir, I have enough.”

When Lee Ah Jung signed his Form 430, Application for Alleged American Citizen for the Chinese Race for Preinvestigation, he signed the name of his infant son, Lee Gat/Goat Oye, in English and Chinese 李月愛. This error was not caught by any of the immigration officials but does add a little confusion to the file.  

On 10 July 1919, The Assistant Commissioner-General of the Bureau of Immigration, Washington, DC, said they were satisfied with the applications and documents they received, and approved the return certificates for the family. Lee Ah Jung and his wife Wong Gun Fook could now apply for their passports.

The next document in Lee Ah Jung’s file is a letter dated 22 March 1941 from Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) saying that Lee Fong Hai, son of Lee Ah Jung and Wong Gun Fook, arrived at the Port of San Francisco on s s. President Coolidge on 13 March 1941 and was admitted two days later. There was no communication between any immigration office about the Helena file since 1919. Lee Fong Hai’s sister, Lee How Kun/Kum, arrived at San Francisco on the s.s. President Coolidge on 3 July 1941. She was admitted on 22 July after being approved by a board of special inquiry.

There are 186 Chinese Exclusion Act case files at National Archives at Seattle for Helena, Montana. Only 4 of them start in the 1890s–1 each in 1894 & 1899 and 2 in 1896, and the other files start in 1900 and later. The destination for these Chinese entering the United States was in Montana or Idaho, and 1 each in Washington, New York, Utah, and Oregon and 2 in New Jersey.

[Thanks Hao-Jan Chang, NARA CEA volunteer, for replicating the Chinese symbols for the signature.]

Coming soon…

File, , ,

Chinese in Washington: The Legacy of the Chinese Exclusion Act
by Trish Hackett Nicola

Chinese in Washington

The Legacy of the Chinese Exclusion Act

By Trish Hackett Nicola

How the U.S. law targeting Chinese laborers impacted families for generations.

Near the end of the nineteenth century, after the railroads were completed and the gold mines exhausted, an economic downturn stirred up anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States. Capitalizing on this prejudice, the government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to limit immigration and naturalization for people of Chinese descent. By 1892, Chinese were required to obtain certificates of residency or identity and carry them at all times. Those who did not could be deported or imprisoned. As the law became stricter, interrogations, affidavits, and Caucasian witnesses were required to prove Chinese people’s right to remain in America. The act wouldn’t be repealed until 1943.

From the National Archives at Seattle, certified genealogist emeritus Trish Hackett Nicola brings to life the case files of Chinese immigrants.

Publication Date: 6th January 2026

Arcadia Publishing

Chinese in Washington

Chew Fen – Merchant then Laborer – Butte, Seattle, Bismarck

Affidavit, Certificate of Identity, Certificate of Residence, Chinese Overtime Certificate, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On 12 April 1897 the following residents of the city of Butte, Silver Bow County, Montana each swore that he is acquainted with Chew Fen and that they had known him three years or more, that Chew Fen is not a laborer, he was a partner of the firm of Po Ning Tong & Company, dealers in general Chinese merchandise; and doing business at #9 West Calena street in Butte; he was not engaged in manual labor during the last year except as was necessary in the conduct of his business as a merchant, and that he was about to leave for China with the intention of returning to the United States. The affidavit was signed by: Charles. T. Lomas, general merchandise; J. A. Murray, banker; J. S. Hammond, M.D. physician, and witnessed by Francis Brooks, Notary Public.

“Chew Fen, admittance form,” 1898, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Chew Fen (Jung Won Lai), Box 901, File 7032/805.

Chew Fen returned the following year. He was thirty-five years old, a merchant for Po Ping [Ning] Tong & Co., Butte, Montana, was admitted to the United States at Port Townsend, Washington, on 19 August 1898. His admittance form says that he had a scar on the back of his left ear and small scars on the back of his neck. He had lived in San Francisco for ten years and Butte for six years. He could not speak English. He said there were cable and electric cars in Butte, there was no grass in Butte, and it was smoky and foggy. He may have been mixing up some of the characteristics of San Francisco and Butte.

On 22 July 1914 Chew Fen, applied to visit China. He testified that he was 49 years old, his married name was Jung Woon Lai, and his boyhood name was Jung Shu Fun. He had a certificate of deposit for $1,000 at Miners Savings Bank & Trust Co. in Butte. He signed his name in Chinese characters. His application was approved.

He returned on 21 July 1915. When questioned he gave the same information as when he left but added that his wife, Fong She was 39 years old, and had natural feet. He was admitted and received his certification of identity.

In May 1918, Chew Fen applied for a trip to China as a laborer. He gave his married name as Tian Wan Lai, and his boyhood name as Tian Chew Fen. There is no explanation about why these names are different than the names he gave in earlier interrogations. He first entered the U.S. at San Francisco in KS 8 [1882]. He was now living in Butte, Montana and was a laundryman for Wing Lee Laundry. He had been a merchant with the Ho Ning Hong [Po Ning Tong] & Company for seven years until the business closed.

Chew Fen returned in April 1919 and gave his marriage name as Jung Woon Lai. He testified that he had not taken any letters, money, packages, or messages from anyone in the U.S. to give to anyone in China. He had not visited with a U.S. resident or the resident’s home while in China. And he had not attended a wedding of a U.S. resident or the son of a resident. These were common questions asked of returning Chinese. Immigration probably wanted to be sure that the traveler wasn’t laying the groundwork for a “paper son” to come to the U.S. Chew Fen was admitted by a unanimous vote when he returned in May 1919 and he received his certificate of identity.

Chew Fen was living in Seattle when he applied to visit China in October 1922. His witness was Jung Bong, a cannery worker with a certificate of residence who had never been out of the United States. When Chew Fen returned to Seattle in 1923 his medical examination found that he had clonorchiasis “liver fluke, a dangerous, contagious disease.” He was detained, denied admission, and deported on 25 October 1923, a little over three weeks after he arrived.

Chew Fen was reexamined in December 1923 and was disease free. In spite of this, his certificate of identity was cancelled in May 1924. Written in red ink across an 1898 memo from James G. Swan, Port Townsend Immigration Commissioner, “Seattle, Wash., July 29, 1915, Canceled, Certificate of Identity, issued this day [signed] G. H. Mangels, Inspr.”

“Immigration Memo re: Chew Fen,” 1924, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Chew Fen,7032/805.

Chew Fen did not give up easily. He applied for readmittance in November 1924 and obtained a Nonquota Immigration Visa. Maurice Walk, American Vice Consul at Hong Kong certified a Chinese Overtime Certificate for Chew Fen and F. Pierce Grove, M.D. PhD declared Chew healthy. Chew Fen, age 57, was admitted and received a new certificate of identity shortly after he arrived at the Port of Seattle on 27 December 1924. He gave his place of residence as Bismarck, South Dakota.

“Chew Fen, Nonquota Visa” 1924, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Chew Fen,7032/805.

Chew Fen applied for a return certificate in December 1930, but the application was cancelled in June 1931. It doesn’t say who cancelled the application–immigration or Chew Fen. No reason was given and there was no more information in the file. [I have been unable to find more information from various sources.]

Lai Hing – New York City Laborer

Application for laborer's return certificate, Certificate of Residence, Form 432 Laborer's Return Certificate, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
“Lai Hing,Consular Certificate” 1919, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Lai Hing (Ow Dun Poy), Box 889, File 7032/518.

In November 1919 Lai Hing, age 55, was filing papers for a laborer’s return certificate, Form 432. His witness, Lee Wing, presented his Certificate of Residence #28505 issued in New York City in March 1894. Lee Wing borrowed $1,000 from Lai Hing, paid in silver and bills, to buy a laundry business in Plainfield, New Jersey.

Lai Hing also presented his Certificate of Residence #43340, issued at Portsmouth, New Hampshire in March 1894. It was examined and returned to him. He first arrived in the United States in 1882 in San Francisco just after the Act had passed and before papers were required. Lai Hing’s marriage name was Jew She and his wife had bound feet. They had two children, a married daughter, Ah Me, age 24, and a son, Ng Gee Shung, age 13. Lai Hing’s application was approved and he received a Consular Certificate with his photo attached.

Lai Hing returned in October 1920 at the Port of Seattle and was admitted, and he returned to his home in New York City.
Lai Hing went through the process of applying to make another trip to China as a nonquota immigration in December 1924. Much of the information he gave was the same as his earlier application. He had loaned Lee Loy $1,000 paid in $100 dollar bills. Loy was a carpenter at 17 Mott Street in New York City. Correspondence from New York Immigrant Inspector refers to Lai Hing as Lai Jing but the other information agrees with the rest of the file.

Lai Hing returned in December 1925. His next trip was in October 1930. He was now sixty years old. He was a laundryman at Charley Sing Laundry in Plainfield, New Jersey. Lai Hing did not return within the statutory one-year period, so his certificate of residence was cancelled.

The Geary Act Project

Geary Act of 1892, The Geary Act Project,

The Geary Act Project is collecting copies of Certificates of Residence.

Find out more about the project. If you have an original Certificate of Residence, learn how you can submit a copy. https://www.thegearyactproject.com/

Bertha Wong aka Chu Yee – Case Study by Elena Wong Viscovich, Ed.D.

Immigration law, slavery, trafficking,, supervised parole, compassionate advocacy,, U.S. Immigration Service, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In January 2023, Elena Wong Viscovich, Ed.D., sent an update and clarification on the post for Donaldina Cameron and the Ming Quong Home.

Applicant Chu (Jew) Yee, 1914

Dr. Viscovich recently completed an in-depth case study on the complicated story of Bertha Wong (Chu Yee), a Chinese orphan paroled into the custody of Donaldina Cameron at the Presbyterian Mission Home in San Francisco in 1914.

Download PDF

Charley Kee (Ng Hock On) – Seattle Merchant

Affidavit, Application for return certificate as merchant, Certificate of Residence, Form 431, laborer, Partner, Photographs, Re-Entry Permit, Witnesses, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
A historical photograph of Yim Gee (also known as Yim Kee), a Chinese merchant in Washington, with a handwritten document in the background detailing his affidavit and personal information.
“Charley Kee (Ng Hock On) Affidavit,” 1892, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Ng Hock On, Box 891, File 7032/547.

In December 1892, Yim Gee [in later testimony he is known as Yim Kee, Charley Kee, and Ng Hock On  伍學端], asked for permission to file an affidavit to certify he was a merchant at the Gim Lung Company in Port Townsend, Jefferson County, Washington. He was twenty-six years old and was born in Canton, China. He landed in San Francisco in 1880 and came to Port Townsend in 1889. His photograph was included in the document. Two white witnesses, J. W. Jones and L. B. Hastings, swore that he was a reputable citizen and they had known him for more than two years.

Charley Kee applied for a Certificate of Departure for a trip to China in 1900. Although his application was approved, there is nothing in the file that shows that he left the U.S.

In 1911 while working as a merchant and partner at King Chung Lung & Co. in Seattle, (Ng) Hock On, applied for preinvestigation of his status as a merchant. He was forty-seven. His childhood name was Yim Kee and he was born in Sai Ping Hong village. His wife was of the Lee family and they had two sons. His elder son, Tai Jung, was 18 years old and going to school in Seattle. His other son, Tai Sin, was in China. His firm sold Chinese goods in Pendleton, Walla Walla, Umatilla, and other nearby towns.

Ah King, a prominent Chinese citizen in Seattle, and manager of the King Chung Lung Co., was a witness for Hock On  學端. There were nine other partners. Ah King testified that Hock On paid $500 for his interest in the company and was a bona fide partner. Hock On’s application required two credible (Caucasian) witnesses. His witnesses were C. M. Rodman, a salesman for the Norris Safe & Lock Co., and J. J. McAvoy, a storekeeper. His application with his photo was approved.

A black and white photograph of a young Asian man in formal attire, with neatly styled hair, presenting an official document regarding his merchant status.
“Ng Hock On, Form 431,” 1911, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Hock On, Box 891, File 7032/547

Hock On returned in May 1913. During his admission interview he said he wanted to surrender his “choc chee” (Certificate of Residence) and obtain a Certificate of Identity. [His Certificate of Residence is in his file but did not apply for a Certificate of Identity.]

A historical Certificate of Residence document issued to Charley Kee, a Chinese laborer residing in Port Townsend, Washington. The certificate includes a photograph of Kee and contains handwritten details about his identity, age, and local residence.
“Charley Kee, Certificate of Residence,” 1894, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Hock On, Box 891, File 7032/547.

He applied for another trip to China in 1921. He gave his American name as Charlie Kee. He was still a partner at King Chung Lung Company at 707 King Street in Seattle. The capital stock of the company was a little over $35,000 and the company did over $70,000 in business in 1920. Kee’s Caucasian witnesses were Daniel Landon, an attorney, and Victor K. Golden, an automobile mechanic. B. A. Hunter, Examining Inspector, visited the store and saw no reason to doubt Kee’s testimony.

Hock On returned to the U.S. in May 1925. He declared he had four sons. His son, Ng Tai Sheung was admitted in April 1926 and his son, Ng Tai Der was admitted in July 1927 at Seattle. They were attending school in Pullman, Washington.

In 1930 Hock On was again applying for a reentry permit for his upcoming trip to China. The Seattle District Commissioner wrote to the Commissioner in Washington, D.C., asking that they compare Kee’s Certificate of Residence with their original record. The original certificate agreed with the duplicate on file at D.C., so they issued a Return Permit.

An immigration reentry permit issued to Ng Hock On, featuring his photograph, personal details, and official stamps.
“Ng Hock On, “Permit to Reenter the U.S,” 1930, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Hock On, Box 891, File 7032/547.

Hock On returned to Seattle in August 1931. He applied for another trip to China in July 1934. This time he was applying as a laborer. He left Seattle on 21 July 1934. There is nothing in the file to indicate that he returned to Seattle but there is 1949 correspondence between immigration offices in Seattle, Walla Walla, Spokane, Washington; Vancouver, B.C.; and San Francisco, California; pertaining to Hock On’s sons Lee Tin Yee and Ng Tai Dor, and Ng Tai Sheung.

Hock On’s Reference Sheet lists the name and file numbers for his wife and four sons.

The Chinese Pilots Who Trained in Portland, Oregon in the 1930s

File
Graduating Class of Chinese Pilots Who Trained in Portland, Oregon in the 1930s

This is a 3-minute video is about the Chinese men and two women who trained to be pilots in the 1930s at the Adcox School in Portland, Oregon. After their training they went to China to fight in the second Sino-Japanese war.

The video is included in the “Roots and Resilience—Chinese American Heritage in Oregon” exhibit at the Museum of Natural and Cultural History at the University of Oregon campus, Eugene, Oregon.

If you are anywhere near Eugene, Oregon, stop by the museum to see the exhibit on the Chinese American Heritage in Oregon. The exhibit is on view until February 2026 at the Museum of Natural and Cultural History at the University of Oregon campus, 15th Avenue, Eugene, Oregon 97403.

To read more about the Chinese pilot training program in Portland, go to:

“I think I am going to fly: Chinese Pilots Trained in Portland During the 1930s,” Oregon Historical Quarterly, 122:4 (Winter 2021), 532-545.




Ai-Li Sung Chin – PhD in Sociology from Radcliffe College

Alien Registration File Number, photo, Precis of Investigation, Section 6 Student, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ai Li Sung arrived at the Port of Seattle as a Section Six nonquota student in September 1937. She was born on 13 April 1919 in Shanghai, China. After graduating from St. Mary’s Hall, an Episcopalian high school for girls in Shanghai, she was awarded a $1,000 scholarship for Colby Junior College, New London, New Hampshire. She received an additional $300 from her father, Sung Xau-yuen, an electrical engineer for Inniss and Riddle Company in Shanghai. Miss Frances MacKinnon, a teacher at St. Mary’s was a witness for her. Ai Li was issued a passport that expired in July 1940.

“Sung Ai Li, Precis of Investigation photo,” 1937, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Sung Ai Li, Box 395, File 7028/1041.

The Registrar at Colby Junior College had to report twice a year to immigration officials about non-quota immigrant students enrolled at the school. They were asked to confirm whether each student was taking a full schedule of daytime classes. They also had to report if a student had left the school and was expected to return but had not. In those cases, they needed to provide the student’s current address or the name and address of someone who could help locate them. If a student had left the U.S. or was planning to leave soon, the report had to include the departure date, the ship’s name, and the port of departure.

H. Leslie Sawyer, the President of Colby, notified the Department of Labor that Ai Li Sung graduated on 12 June 1939 and was transferring to Wellesley College in Cambridge, Massachusetts in the fall.

  Ai Li completed her “Application to Extend Time of Admission as Nonquota Student” form in November 1939 and it was granted for two years.

  In 1941 while a student at Wellesley, Ai Li was employed as a domestic servant by Mrs. Richard Sanger in Cambridge in exchange for room and board. She also worked at the college library for .35 per hour or about $5 per month. Ai Li graduated in June 1941 and was admitted to Radcliffe Graduate School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, on a fellowship for 1941-42.

In 1941, Ai Li received an extension to September 1943. She stated that she had worked as an advertising agent for the Chinese Student Directory from December 1940 to Jan 1941 and received $40. She hoped to obtain a master’s degree in Sociology.

In September 1942, Ai Li wrote to Immigration and Naturalization in Philadelphia, telling them that she received notice from the Civil Service Commission informing her that she received permanent status with the Office of War Information (OWI). She asked if her status should be changed from student to non-student classification. [Immigration did not respond to her question.]

 Ai Li received her Master of Arts from Radcliffe in March 1943. In April she received a notice saying that since she was no longer a student she should apply for a temporary visitor status or she may continue with her status as student while she was training if her work was in the same field as her studies. She notified Immigration that she was a housewife, now married to Robert Chin, living in Washington, D.C. and waiting to be hired by the U.S. Government as a sociologist. Her student classification would expire in September 1943. If she did not receive a sociologist position by then, her status would change to temporary visitor. In May 1943, Ai Li notified Immigration that she had a three-month temporary position for the Research and Analysis Division at the OWI as a translator of Chinese documents. She was hoping to get a one-year research fellowship with the American Council for Learned Societies to make a sociological study of the Chinese family and personality.

While waiting to hear about the research fellowship, Ai Li continued to work for OWI (Office of War Information) as a Press Analyst. She now had an alien registration file, number 1456606. His husband, Robert Chin, worked for the Federal Communication Commission.

In November 1943, Ai Li applied for another extension as a nonquota student stating that she held a permanent position with OWI. It was granted through 4 December 1944. In June 1944 her annual salary was $2,600.

Because of illness she left her job in February 1945. In November 1945, after World War II had ended, Ai Li Lung Chin, who was suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, wrote from the Glenn Dale Sanatorium in Maryland asking for another extension of her student status. Her passport was expiring in a few days on 4 December. She was enrolled in a correspondence course through the University of Wisconsin. While she was recovering, her physician advised her not to travel for two years. He sent a letter to Immigration with the details of her illness. Immigration also needed to know the status of her husband.

In February 1946, Ai Li asked for another extension and answered their query about her husband, Robert Chin–he was a citizen of the United States, born in China. She was granted an extension to 4 December 1946. The final document in Ai Li Sung Chin’s file is a letter dated 5 September 1946. It stated that Ai Li Sung married an honorably discharged citizen member of the armed forces on 21 February 1943… she was found admissible on 9 August 1946 under the Act of 28 December 1945 (Public laws 271), The War Brides Act 1946 & 1946.

Extra information not in the file:
According to the 7 May 2017 issue of The Boston Globe, Boston, Massachusetts, page B7:
Ai-li Shen Chin, age 98, died 25 Apr 2017, in Lexington, Massachusetts.  She enjoyed writing, painting, playing the piano, and ballroom dancing. Her husband Robert Chin, preceded in death.


Chin Hing Chung – Kennebec, Maine

Affidavit, interview questions, Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes, son of citizen, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chin Soy, a U.S. born citizen, wanted to bring his son in China, Chin Hing Chung, to the United States.

Chin Soy swore in an affidavit in March 1937 at Kennebec, Maine, that he was born in the United States about 1880 and was therefore a U.S. citizen. He was issued a Certificate of Identity in Seattle, Washington, in 1916 and was a resident of Waterville, Maine.

“Chin Soy Affidavit photos,” 1937, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Chin Hing Chung, Box 733, File 7030/10206.

Between 1905 and 1932, he had visited China five times. On his 1905 trip he married Dong Shee. They had six children. In 1937 Chin Soy was applying to have his son, Chin Hing Chung, come to the United States with the status as the son of a U.S. native. According to the amended section 1993 (48 Stat. 797) children born abroad to U.S. citizens prior to May 24, 1934 were citizens. The ruling stated that: 

Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child.  In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization.

In 1937 Chin Hing Chung, marriage name Chin Kung Pon, was twenty years old (American reckoning). During Chin’s hearing he was reminded that it was his burden to prove he was not subject to exclusion. On 9 August 1931 he testified that he was born at Soo Oon village, Lock Toon, Sun Ning district, China on 25 January 1917. During Chin’s interrogation he was asked about his parents, their siblings, his siblings and nieces and nephews and his grandparents. He described his home as a five-room brick house with tile floors in all rooms and an open court paved with stone. It had two doors, with two windows in each bedroom. The windows all had iron bars and wooden shutters. The windows under the loft had glass. There was a shrine loft in the parlor. There were about 500 or 600 houses in the village. He was asked about the layout of the houses in the village, the width of the streets, and where the market and social hall were located. The interviewer asked specific questions, such as, who lives in the first house, fifth row, north of main street, his name and age, and number of their children and their names. Similar questions were asked about other people in the village. Did the village have an ancestral hall? A railway station? A school? Who were the teachers? Was there a fishpond? Did his father smoke? Were there any photographs or paintings in his house? Did his mother have a vegetable or flower garden? Did he attend his brother’s wedding feast? Was there anything in his house to represent his ancestors? Did his sister or sister-in-law have bobbed hair? Chin Hing Chung testified that there was a group picture taken of his mother, two brothers, sister and himself about 1922 or 1923. There were seven pages of interrogation.

Chin Hing Chung’s answers were compared to the interview answers of his father and his two previously landed brothers. It was decided that there were no significant differences. In spite of this, Chin Soy, the alleged father, and Chin Keong, the alleged brother, were interviewed again two weeks later. This time the Chinese Inspector, John A. Carney, noted these differences: direction in which the home village faces, the location of the head of the village, and the location of certain ancestral halls. The father and brother both said there was never a group photograph taken of the family. Their interviews were twenty-nine pages long. Their statements might include valuable anecdotal family information about their lives in China that may not be recorded in any other documents.

Chin Hing Chung was interviewed again about the difference between his testimony and his father and brother’s. His answers were satisfactory; the Chairman of the Board of Special Inquiry concluded that Chin Hing Chung was the son of a U.S. citizen, Chin Soy, who had been readmitted as a native-born citizen several times. And Chin Soy was in China at the time when Chin Hing Chung was conceived. Chin Hing Chung was admitted at the Port of Seattle on 3 September 1937 as a U.S. citizen, a little over six weeks after he arrived. He joined his father in Waterville, Maine.

The Reference Sheet in the file includes the names of Chin Hing Chung’s father and two brothers and their file numbers.