Category Archives: Certificate of Identity

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.]

Wong Tew Quay – Wife of Merchant in Needles, California

Certificate of Identity, fraudulent claim, Interrogation, marriage custom, naturalized, nonquota visa, paper son, Precis of Investigation, Section 6 Merchant, wedding feast, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Front row: Wong Tew Quay, mother-in-law, Mah Wai
Second row: Wong Wah Chow (1st cousin), Mah Kang, Jee Yook Hing (a distant cousin) “
Mah Wai Family Photo,” ca. 1936, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Wong Tew Quay, Seattle Box 863, file 7031/776.

Wong Tew Quay was admitted at the Port of Seattle, Washington, on 1 March 1938, as the wife of a merchant. She was issued Certificate of Identity 76724. She was accompanied by her ten-year-old son, Mah Kang.

Wong Tew Quay and her son Mah Kang also had San Pedro, California files, 14036/82-B and 83-B. A Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) consisting of the chairman, two inspectors, an official government typist and an interpreter interviewed the family. There were fourteen pages of testimony.  Most of the interview was with her husband, but her file contained more than five pages of interrogation with her, the subject of the file.

Wong Tew Quay’s husband’s interrogation included this information: Gee Chow Wai (marriage name Seung Din) also had an American name, Harry Wah. His Seattle file listed him as Mah Wai. Because he used several names, he will be referred to as Mah Wai in this summary. He testified that he was born in Hong Soon village, Jee Hung section, Hoy San District, China about 1898. He left China when he was 14 and was admitted to Canada under the name Mah Wai as the son of a merchant, Mah Sang. After his arrival he did not live with Mah Sang but lived in Edmonton with the Gee family. He was asked if he freely admitted that he gained admission to Canada on a fraudulent claim. He answered that he did.

In 1924, Mah Wai’s Section 6 Certificate which allowed merchants to enter the country, was endorsed by the American vice-consul at Calgary, Aberta, Canada. Mah Wai was a partner of the Barrack Grocery store in Edmonton for two years before coming to the U.S. to become a partner of the Gim Ngoon Grocery and Restaurant in Needles, California. From there he made four trips out of the U.S., one to Canada, and three to China. On one of his trips, he married Wong Tew Quay. During his interview, he gave details of his village, wedding, their children, and his extended family. The interviewer asked if he had claimed two false sons in a previous interview and if he intended to bring them into the country for compensation.  Mah Wai admitted that he had thought about bringing them in but did not do it, and if he had, he would not have taken money to bring them in.

 [The interviews continued in spite of this alarming admission. It is surprising that he wasn’t immediately rejected or deported.]

Wong Tew Quay’s testimony agreed with her husband’s. She testified that her mother arranged their wedding. It was half old custom and half new. She first met Mah Wai on their wedding day. He gave her two gold rings and a pair of gold bracelets. Their wedding feast was held at a small pavilion in the village with music provided by two flutists. Her contributions to her new household were a large square table, several wooden stools and chairs, two ratan chairs, a wardrobe, dressing table and a washstand. Her testimony agreed with her husband’s including knowing about her husband’s claim of two false sons (paper sons).  

Their son, Jee Doo Keung (Mah Kang) was also interrogated. His testimony agreed with his parents. He attended school in Hong Soon village. On one of his father’s visits to China, his father gave him a fountain pen and took him to a moving picture show at the Hai Ping theatre in Hoy San city.  Jee Doo Keung correctly identified all the family members he was shown in various photographs.

Wong Tew Quay and Mah Wai re-examined and asked to identify the six people in the photo they had given to the American Consul in Canton during their precis interview. Their testimony agreed. Years earlier in a previous testimony Mah Wei told Immigration Service that he lived in Nam Long village but in this current interview he said he was from Hong Soon village. He confessed that as the paper son of Mah Sang, he had to say he was from Nam Long. He admitted that he made up the identifying information about the two paper sons.

The Chairman of Board of Special Inquiry noted that Gee Chow Wai (Mah Wai) was originally admitted to the U.S. from Canada in 1924. Mah Wai showed proof of being a merchant in his four previous trips out of the U.S. The rest of his testimony seemed to be honest and correct; he identified everyone in the photographs correctly; and his son resembled him. A few days earlier Mah Wai told the commissioner that he had gotten involved with a Christian church in Seattle and a woman missionary encouraged him to tell the truth about his fraudulent admission into Canada. Based on this information, Mah Wai, his wife, and son were admitted to the U.S. two weeks after their arrival.

Mah Wai, was naturalized as a United States citizen at San Bernardino, California in December 1947. In 1948 he applied for a nonquota visa for his wife through the office of the American Consul at Vancouver, B. C., Canada. The Seattle immigration office suggested that they contact the Los Angeles, California immigration office since the couple lived in Barstow, California.

There is a 1950 memo in the file that reports to the Seattle Immigration Director that Wong Tew Quay (Mary Wong Gee or Mary Tew Quay Gee) died at Loma Linda, California on 3 November 1949. She was living at Barstow, California at the time of her death.

Mah Wai’s file may have more details about how he managed to be admitted to the U.S. in spite of his admissions of fraud.

Ng Sen Wing – Vegetable Farmer, Jacksonville, Florida

Affidavit, application for citizen's return certificate, Board of Special Inquiry, bound feet, Certificate of Identity, Form 430 Native’s Return Certificate, passport, reference sheet, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ng Lee Fong swore in an New York State affidavit, dated 21 August 1921, that he was an American born citizen. He had a valid U.S. passport #1053-C. The purpose of his affidavit was to bring his wife, Wong Shee, age forty-three, and his son, Ng Sen Wing, age thirteen, to the United States. His witness was one of his other sons, Ng Jung Fie, of Jacksonville, Florida. Photos of all four of them were attached to the affidavit.

Lower: Ng Lee Fong, Wong Shee, Ng Sen Wing    Upper: Ng Jung Fie, witness
“Ng Lee Fong Affidavit,” 1921, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Sen Wing, Seattle Box 416, 7030/351.

When Ng Lee Fong, his wife, Wong Shee, and their son, Ng Sen Wong, arrived at the Port of Seattle in October 1922, Wong Shee was interviewed. She gave her maiden name as Gin Woon. She was born in Hong Hen Village, Sunning District, China. She had four sons, no daughters. Her two elder sons and their families were living in Jacksonville, Florida. The third adult son came on the ship with them and was a witness for the affidavit. Wong Shee described her family, her husband’s parents and his extended family. When asked, she said they worshiped their ancestor’s graves at Bo Hill, near Bo Chung; and patronized Ng Sum Market and the Sai Ning Market. She identified photos of her daughters-in-law and her grandchildren and gave their dates of birth.

Ng Sen Wing 伍新榮 was interviewed the same day. He testified that he came with his parents, his brother Ng Jung Fai, his wife Lee Shee and his brother Ng Jung Go’s wife, Lee Shee, and their son Wah Poy. His mother had bound feet. He described his village, which faced south, as having six houses and a small schoolhouse. It was the second house from the left-hand side of the village and had five rooms.

Ng Lee Fong, the father, testified that his marriage name was Ng Yee Hung. He correctly identified the photographs of everyone in their traveling group. Ng Lee Fong was originally admitted at Malone, New York, on 31 January 1910, as a returning native born Chinese. [This is why his 1921 affidavit was from New York State; Immigration authorities were verifying his claim of U.S. citizenship from his first re-entry into the U.S. from a visit to China.]

Everyone was examined separately and asked the same questions and asked to identify the same photos. Immigration Service wanted to be sure that everyone’s answers agreed. Inspector Mangold and the committee unanimously approved the admittance of everyone in the family. They had made an exceptional impression on the Board of Inquiry—not only did the son resemble the father but they all arrived as first-class passengers. Mangold declared it “a very excellent case.” Ng Sen Wing was admitted on 26 October 1922, as a student, and given Certificate of Identity 42852.

Ng Sen Wing
“Ng Sen Wing, Certificate of Identity Application photo, Form M135,”
1922, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Sen Wing, 7030/351.

In May 1930 Ng Sen Wing applied to visit China. He was traveling with his parents, a nephew, a brother and his wife and their five children. His father, Ng Lee Fong, testified that he was born in San Jose, California. He and his sons and their families worked on a forty-acre vegetable farm about six miles from Jacksonville valued at about $10,000 [worth about $182,000 in 2023]. He updated all the family information on his sons by giving his grandchildren’s names, ages, and place of birth.

Witness statements for Ng Sen Wing and his three brothers are included in Ng Sen Wing’s file. The questions and answers were mostly the same as in previous examinations. His trip was approved. He left for China and he returned in January 1932.

Six months later he was seeking approval for another visit to China. His application was brief. When asked if he brought his wife, Lee Kim How, with him when he returned in January 1932, he said he had. Now she was being deported because she was not the same person mentioned in her return citizen’s certificate. He was making the trip back to China with her. The Reference Sheet included in Ng Sen Wing’s file lists Lee Kim How’s file as 7030/3463. [Her file should give more information. I will find her file and let you know what was going on. THN]

When Ng Sen Wing returned in May 1934, he was married Lee Kim How and they had a son, Wah Kuey, age 2. His wife and son stayed in China.

In October 1934, Ng Sen Wing of Jacksonville, Florida applied for a Citizen Return Certificate to visit China. He was interviewed about his status as a United States citizen. He was considered a citizen because he was the son of a native, Ng Lee Fong. He presented his Certificate of Identity #42852, which was issued to him when he first arrived in 1922.

His application included his physical description: age 25, height 5’ 4”, 130 pounds, yellow complexion, black hair, and brown eyes. He had a brown mole below the outer corner of his right eye, and marks on the lobe of his right ear and right and left side of his neck. He testified that he lived on a Chinese farm on Lake city road, route 5, Jacksonville, Florida. He was married on 3 February 1931 in Hong Kong, to Lee Kim How, age 21, born in Washington, D.C. His marriage name was Ng See Quong. His wife was living in Lung Chill Loy, China, with their child, Ng Wah Kui [also spelled Kuey].

His request was approved, and he left on 3 December 1934. His Certificate of Identity #42852 was retained at the district office. [The certificate would be returned to him when he re-entered the U.S. This was to assure that if he decided to stay in China, he could not sell or give his certificate to someone else.] His application included sworn statements of his two brothers, Ng Jung Fie, and Ng Jung Go, who were citizens of the United States.

When Ng Sen Wing returned on 23 July 1935 he was admitted at the Port of Seattle. The reference sheet in Ng Sen Wing’s file lists the names and file numbers for his wife (with a note saying she had been deported), his parents, three brothers, five nieces and nephews, and three sisters-in-laws. [This is a gold mine of information for someone researching this family.]

Anna May Wong on U.S. Quarter

Actor, Certificate of Identity, Photographs, , , , , , , , , ,

Anna May Wong Getty Images
Getty Images

The U.S. Mint began The American Women Quarters Program in 2022 and will feature five women each year until 2025. Anna May Wong, a Chinese American actress, was on the first coin introduced in October 2022.

Anna May Wong, was born in Los Angeles in 1905 to Chinese immigrants. Her birth name was  Wong Liu Tsong. She appeared in over sixty movies and had the lead role as a Chinese detective on a U.S. TV show. Because of the discrimination she faced in the U.S., she also worked in European films. In 1960 she was awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Anna May Wong, Silver Screen Collection
Anna May Wong – Certificate of Identity National Archives Identifier: 5720287 8/28/1924 National Archives, San Bruno

“Chinese American Actress’s Story Illustrates ‘Othering’ of Immigrants” by Victoria Blue, National Archives News, 30 March 2021; updated 10 May 2022.

Lee Gum Sing – Interrogations of five-year-old, his father and aunt

Affidavit, Application for Certificate of Identity, Certificate of Identity, discrepancies, funeral custom, Interrogation, photos, reference sheet, released feet, San Francisco file, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In January 1938 Lee Yok Tin swore in an affidavit that he was the son of a native of the United States and was last admitted at the port of San Francisco. Photos of Lee Yok Tin and his son were attached to the affidavit. In September 1938 he was applying to have his son, Lee Gum Sing, who was a citizen through him, come to the U.S.

Lee Yok Tin affidavit with photos of Lee Gum Sing and Lee Yok Tin,” 1938

“Lee Yok Tin affidavit with photos of Lee Gum Sing and Lee Yok Tin,” 1938, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Gum Sing file, Seattle Box 769, 7030/11419.

Lee Gum Sing, age 5, the son of Lee Yok Tin, a U.S. citizen, arrived at the Port of Seattle on 6 September 1938 with his aunt, Lee Ah Yee, and his  father. Their destination was San Francisco. Gum Sing had a scar on his forehead over his right eyebrow, a scar on the back of his right ear and another scar on the right side of his neck. [There was no explanation for the scars, and interrogators did not ask about them in the interviews. THN]

His file contains twenty-nine pages of interrogations. Most questions were directed at his father and aunt but there were four pages of interrogation and two pages of re-interrogation for five-year old Lee Gum Sing. The father and aunt, the son and daughter of Lee Lock, also have separate files.

Gum Sing’s aunt, Lee Ah Yee, was twenty years old when she arrived in Seattle. She had a large brown burn scar on the right side of forehead which she said was from a boil and that no one in the family had had smallpox. She was born on 11 March 1919 in Macao City, China and lived in Sheuk Kee city from the time she was two or three years old. Her citizenship status at her arrival was as the daughter of a native citizen. According to the Chinese Exclusion laws it was necessary for her to prove her right to enter the U.S. She told the interrogator that her father, Lee Lock, marriage name Poy Lum, died in July 1936 at the age of 58. Her father’s funeral was held at their home, but she did not attend it. Her mother, Wong Shee, age 52, had released feet and was still living in the family home in China. Japanese warplanes bombed the business section of their village but not the residential section. [In 1938 the Japanese launched several military campaigns in China.]  Ah Yee’s brother brought her to the U.S. to take care of his son, Gum Sing, and told her she could go to school if she was interested.

Lee Gum Sing’s mother, Ow Young Shee, died in 1938. Gum Sing identified his mother’s photo from her San Francisco file #12033/7572 and his father’s photo from his Seattle file 7030/10699. Gum Sing was born in Jung San on 4 October 1933. He had two older brothers and a younger brother. After his mother died his father married again to Leung Shee.

The interrogators asked Gum Sing about his family, home, street, and neighborhood. Gum Sing spoke in a mixture of Heung San and Sam Yip dialect and told them that the family lived in a small house with no upstairs. It had three bedrooms and three parlors, a clock with a pendulum, red tile floors, no courtyard, a toilet near the kitchen, no outside windows, no framed pictures, one outside door in one of the parlors, and a skylight. There was a round wooden table in the kitchen and a clay stove. The house was lit with kerosene lamps at night. He described who slept where. His grandmother had small feet and walked slowly. His father smoked cigarettes. His father’s new wife, Leung Shee, had bobbed hair and wore earrings, rings and bracelets. On their way to Hong Kong to start their trip to the United States they traveled by autobus and boat. The interrogators asked the same questions and more to his father and aunt.

Gum Sing’s father, Lee Yok Tin, marriage name Jock Sang, testified that he was 32 years old and born in Shauck Kee city, Jung San district, China. He was first admitted to the United States at San Francisco in 1922. He lived in Rockport near Walnut Grove. Since then, he had made three trips to China through San Francisco and one through Seattle. His most recent address was at the Hai Goon Grocery Store, 740 Jackson Street, San Francisco. He worked as a truck driver for the store. Lee Yok Tin’s first wife, Ng Shee died in 1923. They had no children together. His second wife, Ow Young Shee died in early 1938. They had four sons and no daughters. Lee Yok Tin married Leung Shee, age 21, a few months after Ow Young Shee died.

Lee Yok Tin explained that his sister, Ah Yee, was not allowed to attend their father’s funeral in 1936 even though it was in the family sitting room, because she was a girl. [Ah Yee would have been about 18 at the time of her father’s death. It is not known If she could have attended if she was older or if she was not allowed to attend simply because she was female; her age may not have mattered. Does anyone know the customs for females attending funerals? TNH]

The interrogator asked Lee Yok Tin why he did not bring his two older sons to the U.S. Yok Tin said he wanted them to attend school in China. The interrogator was also troubled by some of the discrepancies between the family’s description of the neighborhood. The three agreed on most of the details about the house and neighborhood but did not agree on whether the building directly to the right of the family home was an ancestral hall or if a fruit stand and grocery store stood at that place. And they disagreed about how much space there was between the buildings.

When Lee Ah Yee was being reexamined about some of the discrepancies between her statements and her nephew’s, she said Gum Sing’s answers might be different because he was only five years old and probably too young to know the answers.

In the summary of the interrogations by Roy C. Matterson, chairman of the Board of Special Inquiry, he explained the citizenship of Lee Look, the father of Lee Ah Yee and paternal grandfather of Lee Gum Sing. Lee Look’s file stated that when he was leaving San Francisco for China in March 1906, he claimed he was born in San Francisco. An affidavit from his mother and another witness confirmed his birth. After an investigation he was admitted as a citizen. In May 1922 Lee Yok Tin, the son of Lee Look, applied for admittance as the son of a U.S. citizen and was admitted. They both had made several trips to China and were readmitted each time. Although there were several discrepancies in the testimonies for this trip, when all the evidence, testimony and records were reviewed the discrepancies were not enough to detain Lee Ah Yee and Lee Gum Sing. They were admitted to the U.S. on 24 October 1938.  Lee Gum Sing received Certificate of Identity #78259. His application includes his photo at age 3.

“Lee Gum Sing, form M143,” 1938, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Gum Sing file, Seattle Box 769, 7030/11419.

The reference sheet in the file included file number 7030/12466 for Gum Sing’s older brother, Lee Mai Hing.

Ng Ah Yun – born in Port Townsend, WA, Cont’d

bound feet, Certificate of Identity, Draft Registration, Form 430, passport, War Draft Registration, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is a continuation of the blog entry for !5 September 2022.

In  October 1913 (Ng)  Ah  Yun  filed an “Application of Alleged American-Born Chinese for Preinvestigation of Status” to visit China. His photograph was taken, and this description was listed as: age: 24; height: 5 ft. 6 in; occupation: cannery man; mole on chin  below  lower lip;  left ear pierced; pit– right forehead. He said his correct name was Young, not Yun and that he lived at Wa Young Company store, 416 Eighth Avenue South, Seattle. [He was probably  living  above the store.] Ah  Yun considered himself a general laborer. Although he worked in the cannery, he also worked as a cook and sometimes in laundries. [Even Chinese who were born in the U.S. had to go through this whole investigation process every time they left or re-entered the country.]

(Ng) Ah Yun returned from China on the Ex S.S. Ixion in April 1915. While there he married Wong She and they had a son, Bak Sing. Ah Yun was asked about his brother, Ah Don. He told the interviewer that Ah Don had married Lin She, who had natural feet. They had one son, age two.

Chinese were usually  asked if  their wife  or mother had bound or natural  feet. This was probably one of many questions asked to see if his answer was consistent each time he left or entered the U. S.]

In May 1915 (Ng) Ah Yun received his certificate of identity. This certificate contained his photo, was made of sturdy  paper and, at 4-by-9 inches in size, fit into a durable storage sleeve; making it much easier and safer for him to carry than court discharge papers. He was required  to carry the certificate with him at all times.

In June 1917, Ah Yun registered for the military draft in Hartford, Connecticut. His registration lists him as “Wah Young,” although he signed his name “Wu Ah Young” and he gave his date of birth as 29 October 1889, instead of 23 August 1889. The rest of the information agrees with previous facts about him.  At that time, he was working as a waiter at a Cantonese Restaurant and living at 257 Asylum Street.  The physical description of him says that he had lost a toe[3]

Wah Young WW I Draft Registration Card, side 1
Wah Young WW I Draft Registration Card, side 2

 [Note: The draft registration card is not included in his case file, but it is referred to in the file. Without this information in the file, it would be hard to know that he had registered for the draft. This is the only  document that says he was living in Connecticut  at  that  time. Because of the differences in the spelling of his name and in his date of birth, it would have been difficult to make the connection between Ah Yun and his draft registration. There is no additional information given about his missing toe.]

In November 1919 Ng Ah Yun again applied to leave the U.S. He went through an interrogation process similar to the interview he had had in 1913. New information revealed that his father, Yee Kong, had  died in 1912 in Song Leung village; his  mother’s brother, Si  Chuck, who lived in Gow Ngok Won, had also died. Ng Ah Yun said he had married in 1913 and his son, Ng  Bok Sen, was born in  1914. His marriage name was Ng See Tong. He stated that he was in poor health at that time.

Ah Yun was in New York City at the time he applied for his passport. James V. Storey, Customs Broker at William A. Brown & Co. was his identifying witness. Ah Yun paid a $2 application fee.[4]

In December 1919 Ng  Ah Yun received his passport so he could go to Hong Kong to visit his mother and family. The passport had a current photo, gave his age and a physical description.

Ah Yun Passport, 1919, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, 7030/6363.

Ng Ah Yun returned to the port of Seattle on the S.S. Bay State in May 1922. His life had changed. He had a second son, Ng Bok Chung (Teung), and his wife had died, probably in childbirth. He had remarried, to a woman named Chin She, who also had natural feet. She remained in China.

Ah Yun Form 30 photo, 1926, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, 7030/6363.

Ng Ah  Yun applied for his third trip back to China in August 1926. His third son, Bok Wong, was born  a few months after his return to Seattle in 1922, and he was probably anxious to see him. Ng Ah  Yun returned  to the United States through Seattle in July 1927, on the SS President McKinley.

At age forty-five, Ng Ah Yun once again went to visit his family in China. He was still living in New York City and working as a laundryman. His oldest son, Ng Bok Sing, had been living in the United States as well, but went back to China through Seattle in 1933. His other son (by his first wife), Bok Chung, was living  in Song Lung village in China. Ng Ah Yun’s second wife had given birth to another son, Bok Teung, born in 1927 after her husband’s last visit. Bok Teung was almost seven years old before his father met him for the first time.

Ng Ah Yun returned to Seattle on the SS President Jackson in November 1936. He now had six children, all sons, and one son, Ng Bok Sing, was living in the United States.

Not all Chinese Exclusion Act case files give this much information, although some give even more.  This case file provided information for a four-generation genealogy chart, contained six photos of Ah Yun from 1907 to 1934, a photo of his brother in 1907, addresses where Ah Yun had lived over the years, information about his extended family in China, and a 1919 passport. More family information  could be obtained from Charley Quong’s case file and the files of his siblings who were born in the United States. The file refers to other documents easily obtained–passenger lists, World  War I draft registration information, and the file of the son who was living in the United States. The file has a wealth of genealogical information and gives clues to finding much more information on the extended family.

This information was obtained from Chinese Exclusion Act Case Files ca. 1895-1943, Record Group 85; National Archives- Seattle, Ng Ah Yun, Case 7030/6363. The case study was originally published in the Seattle Genealogical Society Bulletin. The citation for the complete article is: Trish Hackett Nicola, CG, “Chinese and the Northwest,” SGS (Seattle) Bulletin, 64-1 (Winter 2014) 39-47.

[3]United States, Selective Service System, “World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration  Cards, 1917-1918,” database on-line, National  Archives and Records Administration. M1509, Ancestry.com (:accessed 22 August 2022), Wah Young, Hartford, Conn, No. 1597;citing  FHL, Roll1561897; Draft Board 2.

[4] Ng Ah Yun, 1919 Passport Application #4551, National  Archives and Records Administration (NARA); Washington D.C.; Passport Applications for Travel to China, 1906-1925; Collection Number: ARC Identifier 1244180 / MLR Number  A1 540;  Box#: 4448; Volume#: 35; Ancestry.com. U.S. Passport Applications, 1795-1925 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2007; accessed 22 August  2022.



Leung Man Hoi – Section 6 Merchant Certificate from Swatow

Application for return certificate as merchant, Certificate of Identity, Medical Card, Section 6 Merchant, Swatow Certificate, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leung Man Hoi arrived in the Port of Seattle on 15 May 1915. He passed his medical exam. He did not have hookworm or trachoma.

Leung Man Hoi (Yum Gong), Medical Examination, 1915, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Leung Man Hoi (Yum Gong), box RS193, # RS29097

He was interviewed by Immigration Inspector Henry A. Monroe. He testified that his marriage name was (Leung) Yum Gong, he was 30 years old, and born on 10 March 1886 in Kai Gock village, Moy Yuen District, China. He was married to Chin She and they had two sons, Sik Chee, age 6; and Sik Yuen, age 2. Leung was in the rice and wine business at Bo San Wo Co., Chung Sar Market, China. He had a friend, Wong Shu Tong, who was living at the King Chong Lung Co. Leung Man Hoi was admitted to Seattle on his day of arrival as a Section 6 Merchant and received his certificate of identity #20276. His destination was the King Chong Lung Company, 217 Washington Street, Seattle.

When questioned by Inspector Henry A. Monroe, Leung Man Hoi said that he was examined in China by a consular representative at Swatow. Leung did not know the interviewer’s name, but he said he answered his many questions truthfully. Leung did not have any relatives in the U.S., only a friend, Wong Shu Tong, who he had not seen in ten years. Wong worked for the King Cheng Lung Company. Leung only had $10 in cash with him and a bank draft for $1,000 in gold drawn on Wah Young Company issued in Hong Kong.  Inspector Monroe concluded that it was not a bank draft but only an order for the Wah Young Company to extend credit to Leung.

Leung, Section 6 Certificate for Merchant, Swatow, 1914, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, #RS29097

Inspector Monroe asked Leung if he knew Chin Tan in China. Chin solicited men of means to secure Section 6 certificates so they could enter the United States [illegally]. Leung denied knowing Chin Tan. At the conclusion of the interrogation Monroe reminded Leung that under no circumstances could he work as a laborer, or he would be subject to arrest and deportation.

Leung Man Hoi applied to leave the U.S. in May 1920 from San Francisco. He filed his application for a return certificate as a merchant and it was approved on 12 June 1920 by the commissioner at Angel Island Station in San Francisco, California, but with some reservations. This is an excerpt from a letter to Immigration in San Francisco from the Seattle immigration office on May 28, 1920:

              “Please note that Leung Man Hoi is a so-called Swatow Section 6
                merchant. A couple of years ago this office established to the
                satisfaction of the Department at Washington and the U.S. Court here,
                on Writ of Habeas Corpus, that all Swatow cases were fraudulent, and
                the last twenty-two from that place holding papers were returned to
                China, after Judge Neterer of the District Court here had discharged
               a Writ of Habeas Corpus obtained in their behalf. Since that time
               no Chinese holding Swatow certificates have applied at this port for
               admission. Testimony of the applicant given May 15, 1915, in interest-
                ing reading, in view of the subsequent developments in Swatow cases.”

In spite of the letter from the Seattle office about their doubts of the validity of Section 6 merchant certificates issued in Swatow, Leung Man Hoi’s papers were approved.

If someone wants a project on the Chinese Exclusion Act case files, it would be interesting to find the files or the court cases on a 22 Chinese with Swatow papers who were returned to China.
The CEA volunteers are still not back at NARA-Seattle but when we were all working together Rhonda Farrar called my attention to this file. Thank you Rhonda!

Loui See Fung joins father in Alamosa, Colorado in 1941

Certificate of Identity, Description of house, Photographs, San Francisco file, son of citizen, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Loui See Fung  雷樹宏 arrived at the Port of Seattle on the s.s.Princess Marguerite on 11 January 1941. He was classified as the son of citizen, Loui Guee (Louie Gwee) (married name: Woon Jing). He was admitted exactly one month later and received his Certificate of Identity on 14 February. His destination was El Paso, Texas. He was nineteen years old, born on 20 September 1921 at Ai Lat Village, Hoy San District, China. According to Dr. Seth, the Medical Examiner of Aliens, the applicant appeared to be younger than he claimed. X-rays might give a more accurate assessment, but the immigration board decides that it was not necessary. The father presented a photo of the applicant when he was about five years old. There was a strong resemblance between the alleged father and the applicant.

“Loui See Fung, photo,” ca. 1926, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Loui See Fung case file, Seattle Box 823, file 7030/13488.

Loui See Fung’s father, Loui Guee, originally arrived in the United States in October 1913 and was admitted as the son of a native, Loui Yim, who was subject to San Francisco file 10346/1433.

In Loui See Fung’s interrogation he testified that he spoke the See Yip Hoy San dialect and had never been in the United States before. His family moved to Ping On village when he was four or five years old. He last saw his father when he was about eight years old, but he readily identified him from a photograph because he remembered that his father had a scar on his forehead which showed in the photo. The interrogator asked many questions about his father’s extended family. Loui See Fung answered most of the questions correctly and was asked if he had been coached with the answers.
It was a long interrogation with over five pages of testimony. He described his mother as Yee Shee, natural feet, some pock marks on her face, able to read and write, mother of four sons and no daughters. He told the names and ages of his brothers and where they went to school. He described his village and the nearby villages, the streams, a fishpond, markets, and school. Loui See Fung lived in a brick house with two bedrooms, a living room, two kitchens with a room over each kitchen, cement floors in all the rooms, all closed by glass and iron bars, no shutters, and two outside doors. They had a black dog but no pig. He was asked about specific houses in his village—”who lives opposite your door in the 3rd house, 2nd row?” and the names of the occupants, their ages, occupations, children’s names and ages, and where they went to school.

There was a lengthy interview of Loui’s father, Loui Guee.  He stated that for the last ten years, he was a partner in a restaurant at Alamosa, Colorado. He was asked how he could identify his son if he had not seen him in about eleven years. He said, “I recognize him because he is my son. The photograph looks like him.” He chose the correct photo of his son out from more than ten photos. He testified that he had two brothers, Loui Fee in Oxnard, California, and Loui Wing in Ogden, Utah. He gave additional details about the family home. It had a stone court, a shrine on the second floor, and a balcony with a wood floor over each first-floor bedroom. They had three ancestral tablets.

“Louie Guee Affidavit, King County, Wash.,” 4 Sept 1940, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Loui See Fung case file, file 7030/13488.

Most of the testimony of the father and son agreed completely. Although Loui See Fung said his destination was El Paso, Texas, and his father lived in Alamosa, Colorado; the interrogator ignored this inconsistency. The other differences were minor. The doctor testified that the applicant appears to be younger than his stated age, but it was not enough to reject the applicant. Loui See Fung was admitted and received his Certificate of Identity.

Woo Quin Lock – rejected/appealed/admitted

Affidavit, burial ceremony,, Certificate of Identity, dual marriage, family photo, Letters of recommendation, marriage custom, San Francisco file, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[The National Archives is still closed because of COVID-19. This file was copied before March 2020. thn]

Woo Quin Lock was born on 3 March 1920 at Kwong Tung, China. He was the son of a U.S. citizen. He arrived at the Port of Seattle on 2 February 1940 on the Princess Charlotte. He was denied admittance on 12 April 1940. His case was appealed on 10 May, and he was admitted on 10 August, more than eight months after his arrival. He received his Certificate of Identity No. 83265 two days later. The exhibits submitted in his case were an affidavit by his father, Woo Yen Tong, three letters written by the applicant to his father and their translations, a sample of the applicant’s handwriting, four Woo Seattle case files and eight San Francisco files for various Woos.

Woo Quin Lock’s father, Woo Yen Tong, swore in an affidavit that he was a United States citizen and that he had proved his citizenship to the Immigration Service after his arrival at the Port of San Francisco on 14 August 1911 and was issued a Certificate of Identity No. 4752. Three photos were attached to his affidavit.

Woo Quin Kwock, Woo Quin Lock, probably Woo Koon Sang
Son: Woo Quin Lock; Father: Woo Yen Tong

“Woo Yen Tong, affidavit,” 1939, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Woo Quin Lock case file, Seattle Box 805, file 7030/12841.

During his 1940 testimony, Woo Quin Lock testified that his father sent him $1,200 in Hong Kong currency to cover his travel expenses. Chin Thick Gee a member of the Mow Fon Goon store in Hong Kong, purchased his ticket for him. His father owned two houses and a social hall in Wan Jew village. Overnight visitors stayed in the social hall which was the 8th house, 9th row, counting from the north. Gar Theung and Gar Thin, sons of his paternal uncle Get Tong were living in the building while they were guests of the family in 1938. The family owned an old house on the north side and a new house on the south side. The interrogator told Woo Quin Lock that his testimony about some of his uncles and cousins and the location of the houses did not agree with his father’s and brother’s testimony.

The case file contains more than sixty pages of documents and testimony. The following is an excerpt from the summary written by the Immigration Committee Chairman:

The alleged father, Woo Yen Tong, was originally admitted at San Francisco in 1909 as the foreign-born son of a native, Woo Gap.

Woo Yen Tong returned to China in 1919. He married Chen Shee and their son; Woo Quin Lock was born before he returned to the United States. He made several trips to China and four sons were born. Woo Quin Lock’s younger brother, Woo Quin Kwock arrived from China in 1939 and was admitted. He was a witness for Woo Quin Lock.

There were many discrepancies between the testimony of the applicant and his brother about their method and date of travel to Hong Kong, where they stayed on the way, and when they got there. The brothers did not agree on when and where their alleged younger brother attended school.

The interrogation committee decided that the relationship between Woo Quin Lock and his father and brother could not be established. They denied Lock admission to the United States, but he had the right to appeal. The case was reopened in April 1940 to reconsider the citizenship of the alleged father. Woo Yen Tong’s brother was called to testify. Woo Fong Tong (marriage name Sik Kew) presented his Certificate of Identity #10738 which was issued to him in San Francisco in 1913. He testified that he was forty-four, born (ca. 1894) in Wan Jew village, Toy San district, China. He was a laborer living in the Chicago Hotel in Spokane, Washington. He made two trips to China in 1921 and 1929 and returned through the port of San Francisco. He identified the photos that were attached to Fook Yen Tong’s affidavit and a photo of their father, Woo Gap, from his 1921 Certificate of Identify that was included in his San Francisco file. He correctly identified all the Woo photos from the Seattle and San Francisco files.

Woo Fong Tong described the burial ceremony for his father Woo Gap (the transcriber made a note that Gap was pronounced NGIP). Woo Gap died in 1929 and Woo Fong Tong took his remains, his whole body, not just his bones, back to China in a regular wooden casket which was placed in a wooden box lined with tin. After their arrival in Wan Jew village the shipping box was removed, and the casket was placed outside the village for a day for visitation by the family. Then the casket was opened briefly to give everyone one last look at the body. They had a regular burial procession with the whole family accompanying the casket to the burial place at Fong Ngow hill, about 2 lis (less than a mile) north of Wan Jew village. After Woo Gap was buried, the family worshipped at his grave.

Woo Gap was married three times and his father was married twice. There was much testimony in the case file about whether the Woo men were stepsons or half-brothers.

In May 1940, P. J. Hansen, wrote a reference letter for Woo Yen Tong, who he called Raymond Woo. Hansen stated that Woo had worked for him for nine years as cannery foreman and he considered him a conscientious and trustworthy employee. He offered his assistance in getting Woo’s son admitted to the United States.

The legal brief for the appeal on behalf of Woo Quin Lock conceded that Woo Quin Lock was a foreign-born son of Woo Yen Tong but left open the question of his father’s citizenship of the United States.  Woo Yen Tong derived his citizenship through his father, Woo Gap. Woo Gap and his second wife Lee Shee were the parents of Woo Yen Tong. Woo Gap married Lee Shee before the death of his first wife which was legal under Chinese law and custom. Woo Gap’s first wife, Chow Shee, the mother of his four sons, was ill for many years and required constant care. Woo Gap’s second wife moved into the household and cared for Chow Shee and the children. Woo Yen Ton was the son of Woo Gap and Woo’s second wife, Lee Shee. He was born before Woo’s first wife died.

Woo Quin Lock’s attorney, Edward E. Merges, brought forward a May 1918 letter written by Philip B. Jones, Immigration Officer at San Francisco to the Commissioner of Immigration at Angel Island stating the merits Woo Gap’s status as a merchant (one of the exemptions to the Exclusion Act). Woo Gap was born in the United States, a merchant in Santa Cruz, California, and well-known by the community and the immigration station. He resided with his wife and their son Woo Yen Tong. They provided a home and schooling for their son which Immigration authorities thought was sufficient proof of their relationship. They were also impressed that Woo Gap was honest about his dual marriage. Woo Yen Tong’s case was submitted to the Central Immigration Office in Washington, D.C. and it was determined that Woo Gap was a citizen of the United States. His son, Woo Yen Tong, had been admitted as the son of a citizen.  Finally, after an eight-month legal battle, Woo Quin Lock was admitted as the son a citizen on 20 August 1940. His new residence was 725 King Street, Seattle, Washington.

Ng Wing Yin – unable to prove he was the son of a U.S. citizen; deported

Affidavit, Certificate of Identity, Deportation, family photo, student, Witnesses, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[The National Archives is still closed because of COVID-19. This file was copied before the closure in March 2020. I will let you know when the archives reopens. THN]

Ng Wing Yin arrived at the Port of Seattle on 28 January 1929 was deported after almost two months in detention. He could not prove his relationship to his alleged father, Ng Wah Lai, a U.S. citizen.

His attorney, Hugh C. Todd, wrote to the Bureau of Immigration in Washington, D.C. regarding Ng’s appeal. Ng Wing Yin was first denied admission in January 1927. His 1929 entry was his second attempt to enter the U.S. Todd argued that no one except a father would try to bring his son into the country twice. Anyone else would have given up. This application included a photo taken in 1921 of the father and son when the son was ten years old. Todd pointed out the resemblance between the two—their posture, eyes, nose, ears and chin, even the curl of the mouth. The photograph was not included in the 1927 earlier entry application.  

“Ng Wing Yin and Ng Wah Lai photo” 1921 , Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Ng Wing Yin case file, Seattle Box 1118, file 10346/10-12.

[The National Archives is still closed because of COVID-19. This file was copied before the closure in March 2020. I will let you know when the archives reopens. THN]

In 1929 Ng Wing Yin was seventeen years old and a student. He was born in Woy Lung Lee village, Sun Wei Ning District, China. He was attempting to enter the U.S. as the son of a native. His parents were Ng Wah Lai (marriage name Yuk Moon), and Mar Shee.  He presented an affidavit with a photo of him with  his father stating that his father was a United States citizen.

Ng Wing Yin was questioned about the first time he tried to enter the U.S. in 1926. He was denied, it was appealed, denied again, and he was deported. He was asked why he was trying to enter again since he was debarred the first time.  He did not reply. His only witness was his father.

Ng Wah Lai testified that he was born in Riverside, California and that he had lived in Durango, Colorado for four years and planned to go back there. He was currently working at the Kwong Man Yuen store at 701 King Street in Seattle. He showed his certificate of identity #4188 issued at Boston, Massachusetts in 1911. The only proof he had that Ng Wing Yin was his son was the photo of them together. The immigration authorities agreed that the people in the photo were Ng Wah Lai and Ng Wing Yin but that did not prove their relationship. They had no new witnesses or evidence except for the photo taken of them together in 1921. They asked Ng Wah Lai why he was going through this process again when nothing had changed. Ng said, “He is my son and is anxious to come to the U.S.”

Ng Wing Yin was unable to prove that he was the blood son of Ng Wah Lai so he was denied entry into the U.S. Their attorney appealed, it was denied, and Ng Wing Yin was deported, again.

[What do you think? Would you have admitted him?]