Category Archives: Deportation

Lee Kim How – wife of Ng Sen Wing deported

Birth Report, Deportation, Deportation Order, File, Form 430, photos, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lee Kim How was the wife of Ng Sen Wing, the subject of the July 2023 blog entry.

Lee Kim How went to China in 1920 with her parents and three of her siblings when she was eight years old. She returned in 1932 as a married woman.

“Lee Kim How, Form 430,” 1920, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Kim How, Seattle Box 416, 7030/3463.

Her father, Lee Fong, presented a 1912 Acknowledgment of Report of Birth to Immigration officials and obtained a 1920 transcript of her birth to assure her entry into the United States when they returned. Her name on the report is shown as Mary Lee Foong (Kim Han Foong). [Lee Kim How ‘s Americanized name was Mary Lee Foong. She also appears sometimes as Kim Han Foong. Her name throughout her file is usually Lee Kim How.]

“Lee Foong, Acknowledgment of Report of Birth,” 1912, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Kim How, Seattle 7030/3463.

Her father obtained a transcript of her birth record before they left for China in 1920.

Mary Lee Foong, Transcript #3437 of birth record, Health Department, District of Columbia, 8 July 1920, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Kim How, Seattle 7030/3463.

Their physician, Mary A. Parsons, testified in 1932 that she delivered all six of the Fong Children. Their mother was hospitalized but she would be released for the trip. The older four children went to China with their parents.

Lee Kim How (Mary Lee Foong) arrived at the Port of Seattle on 13 January 1932. She was 19 years old and was accompanied by her husband, Ng Sen Wing. Their destination was Jacksonville, Florida. She had not seen her father since 1921. Two of her brothers and her father were interviewed about her status. They said Lee Kim How’s mother had been institutionalized before they left for China in 1920. When Lee Kim How was asked questions about her father, she said she did not know much about him, that her mother was well and had not been confined to an institution of any kind. She was asked over and over if her mother had been seriously ill and incapable of taking care of her and her siblings. She said her mother always took care of them.

The file contains over 195 pages of documents and interviews. Her father, her siblings, and her husband were interviewed several times. Others in the family testified that the mother was sick and institutionalized and that the two younger daughters were put in an orphanage for a short time. The family moved several times in the D.C. area during this period. Not everyone agreed about the exact street address they were living at certain dates. They gave different dates for Lee Kim How’s wedding and what year she had her ears pierced.

Lee Gum (Gim) Wah, an older brother of Lee Kim How, testified that they were very poor and that their father gave two of the younger daughters away or put them in an orphanage before the rest of the family left for China. He said that Lee Kim How spent some time in the orphanage, but he did not know how long she was there.

In the summary of the case the Immigration Inspector said that some of the father’s testimony did not agree with the statements he originally gave when he came into the U.S. in 1894 but they were more concerned with his statements about his daughter. The father did not recognize his daughter’s photo. She was eight or nine years old when he last saw her and now she was 19. He thought he wasn’t able to recognize her because she had changed considerably when she was sick shortly after returning to China and later fell and lost two front teeth.

Several times in the file, there is a list of records examined but it never includes the Acknowledgment of Report of Birth or the Transcript from the Record of Births for Mary Lee Foong (Kim How Foong).

Photos of Kim How Foong were taken in 1932 when she returned. One view was straight on and the other was a side view with her hair pulled back so you could see her ear.

“Lee Kim How photos, 1932,” CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Kim How, Seattle 7030/3463.

After several interviews with Lee Kim How, Immigration Inspector Doyas, had already accumulated 90 pages of interviews on her. He was dismayed that she could not remember many details about her life in Washington, D.C where she lived until she was eight years old—she could not answer questions about her father’s business, her toys, the names of the nearby streets, her school’s name, etc. Her interrogators tried to get her to speak English but she would only say words that she probably learned in detention.

On 26 March 1932 the Board of Inquiry unanimous rejected Lee Kim How’s application for admittance into the United States saying her case appeared to be entirely fraudulent. They thought she had a remarkable lack of knowledge of her life in the U.S. even though she lived in the U.S. until she was eight and one-half years old. Her father testified that the family moved to a new apartment several months before the family moved to China. Lee Kim How did not know the new address. [This could have been because she had been put in an orphanage for a few months before they left for China. There is no indication in the file that they reviewed the information at the orphanage for the dates she was in residence.]

The Committee believed that:
a.  The girl in the 1920 Form 430 photo had pierced ears. Lee Kim How said her ears were pierced a few years after she arrived in China.
b. The ears in the 1920 photo were a different shape than the ears of the girl seeking admission into the U.S. in 1934.
c. The ears of the applicant were pierced higher on the lobe and closer to the cheek than the ears of the girl on the 1920 Form 430.
d. The photos showed that the girls had “two different natures.” The upper lip was different.
e. They thought she should be able to speak more English than she demonstrated during the interviews.

After Lee Kim How was rejected, her attorney, Fred H. Lysons, requested an appeal. While they were waiting for that decision, Dr. Raymon E. Seth, U.S. Public Health Service physician, recommended that Lee Kim How have a tooth extracted. She and her husband decided to wait until her case was settled.

Ng Sen Wing, Lee’s husband, applied for and was granted a release from detention for several one-hour sessions to visit with his wife. They were always accompanied by an Immigration Station matron.

The family requested a two-week delay for Lee’s deportation so that members of her family could accompany her to China.

On 14 May 1938, there was a stay of deportation so more photographs could be taken of Lee with her ears in the same position as the 1920 Form 430 photo.

“Photos of Lee Kim How,” 1932, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Kim How, Seattle 7030/3463.

On 5 July 1932, after a review of the new photos the appeal was dismissed and Lee Kim How was scheduled for deportation after almost six months of detention at the Port of Seattle. The reason listed was “birth in United States not established.” [It is not clear why her District of Columbia report of birth was not considered. It is hard to understand why U.S. Immigration spent so much time and manpower to keep this woman out of the U.S.]

The reference sheet in her file includes a listing of names and file numbers for her father, husband, a brother, a sister, son, mother- and father-in-law, several brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, nieces and a nephew.

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?]

Lin Hay (Mrs. Wong Gai Kee) and family, Portland, Oregon

Deportation, family photo, Group Photo, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Portrait Wong Gai family
“Wong Gai family portrait” ca. 1903, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, (Chin) Lin Hay (Mrs. Wong Gai Kee) case file, Seattle Box 65, 32/2355.
Family Portrait, ca.1903: Wong Gut Bow (born ca. 1884), Wong Gai Kee, Lin Hay (Mrs. Wong Gai), Gut Fong/Tong (born July 4, 1897) Front: twins: Gut Tung and Louie Hie (born January 1899)
(Chin) Lin Hay was born about 1863 in Gong Ming Village, Sunning District, China and first came to the United State in 1893 landing at Portland, Oregon. She arrived with her son Wong Gut Bow and daughter, Wong Toy Gew.
Wong Gut Bow died in 1903 or 1905 on a ship en route to China. He was married to Lee Shee and they had a baby daughter, Ah Gui.
In May 1907 Mrs. Wong Gai applied for admission as the returning wife of a domiciled merchant, Wong Gai, of the Gai Kee Company of Portland, Oregon. Her status was upheld based the testimony of six credible white witnesses who swore that Wong Gai had been the head of the Gai Kee Company for over twenty-five years and that he was registered by the government as a merchant. The Caucasian witnesses interviewed by John B. Sawyer, Chinese Inspector, were William Bohlander, F. H. Saylor, O.P. S. Plummer, James B. Young, F.M. Anderson and W. R. Kerrigan. They testified that Wong Gai bought and sold vegetables. Mrs. Wong Gai admittance depended of proof of Wong Gai’s status as a merchant. Mr. Sawyer carefully investigated Wong Gai’s place of business. He noted that it looked like a junk shop and did not have much inventory of goods but it had once been a thriving business. And most importantly, Wong Gai did not engage in manual labor. He kept roomers and boarders to supplement his vegetable business. Sawyer reported: “Wong Gai says he will continue producing witnesses so long as the Government is not satisfied with those examined but that no one would be better qualified to testify than those already produced.” Wong Gai kept his status as a merchant.
Mrs. Wong Gai returned with her three children, Gut Fong/Tong (born July 1897) and Gut Tung and Louie Hie (born January 1899). The twins were admitted as returning native born citizens of Portland. Her son Gut Fong/Tong, was born during her temporary visit to China, and was admitted as the minor son of a domiciled merchant. An attempt was made to bring in Ah Wong, a substitute for Mrs. Wong’s deceased son Wong Gut Bow. He was declared an impostor and was deported.

The interrogator asked Mrs. Wong Gai what doctor, White or Chinese, delivered her children. She replied, “I didn’t have any, but just did it myself.”

In 1927 Mrs. Wong Gai Kee (Chin Lin Hay), age 64, was applying for a laborer’s return certificate. Mrs. Wong’s 23-year-old son, Wong Git (Gut) Fong, also known to white people as Nick Wong, testified for his mother. He worked as a waiter at Huber’s Restaurant in Portland, Oregon. The application was given a favorable endorsement.
Other case files listed in connection with the case include files for her husband, Wong Gai; their children and grandchildren.

Compelling Letter of Support by Ruby Whang

Correspondence, Deportation, , , , , , , , ,

Excerpt of 1941 letter from Ruby Whang:

Excerpt of letter from Ruby Whang
“Letter of Support by Ruby Whang,” 1941, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Chin Back Pang case file, Portland, Box 107, 5023/80.

Chin Back Pang, who was in his early 50s or 60s, was arrested in Portland, Oregon in May 1941—he was a Chinese-born laborer without papers. He arrived in the United States as a stowaway about 1918.
Ruby Whang, a 17-year old Korean girl from Gresham, Oregon sent a letter to E. P. Marsh at the U.S. Court House in Portland. The letter was forwarded to Marsh in Washington, D.C. He knew nothing about the case or how Whang got his name. He forwarded to Roy Norene at Immigration in Portland saying the letter “has a very appealing tone…”
There is no information in the file of how it was discovered the Chin was an illegal. He worked on a farm and there is no mention of him getting into trouble.
A letter from the Federal Bureau of Investigation “fails to disclose prior arrests or criminal data…” [The letter is signed with the signature stamp of J. E. Hoover.]

J Edgar Hoover Letter
“Letter from J. Edgar Hoover to Portland Director of Immigration, 1941” Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Chin Back Pang case file, Portland, Box 107, 5023/80.

Chin Back Pang was deported.

Chin Mon – Deported in spite of strong support

Affidavit, Deportation, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chin Mon Photo
“Chin Mon, Description of Person Deported,” 1927, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Chin Mon file, Portland, Box 53, Case 5001/88.

Chin Ding, Chin Mon, alias Chin Mon Ding, age 54, was ordered deported by Department of Labor on 25 May 1926. He left on his own accord on 1 February 1927 from Seattle on s.s. President Jefferson. He paid his own expenses.
Before leaving he sold all of his interests in the United States. He stated that if he was not permitted to remain permanently he preferred to depart on his own. He did not want to use all of his money “here in idleness” when he would probably be deported eventually.
The Department of Labor suspected Inspector Charles E. Keagy of accepting and soliciting bribes. They wanted Chin Mon to testify against Keagy because of Chin Mon’s “ingenuous and frank manner.” Although Chin Mon decided not to testify, Keagy was fired by the Bureau of Immigration.

Testimony revealed that Charles Brotchie, a deputy sheriff and John W. L. Fort, a mail carrier, both of Seattle testified that Chin Mon was a merchant in Seattle when he was actually a gardener (a laborer) at Beaverton, Oregon.
A summary of the investigation said that Chin Mon testified that he paid $500 to Inspector Keagy in 1922 to obtain a merchant classification. The amount was transferred at the Kuong Tai Company in Seattle. Chin Mon wanted to get merchant’s papers so he could bring his adopted son to the United States. The son, Chin Woon or Foon (Seattle file 1545/13/15) did accompany his father to the U.S. in 1924 but was denied admission, appealed and was eventually admitted. (Inspector Keagy was not on the board denying admission.) Chin Woon worked with his father in the garden in Beaverton.
Chin Mon, alias Chin Ding, marriage name Mon Ing, was born about 1872 in Foong Nguen village, Sun Ning district and first entered the United States at Portland when he was 18 years old. He had a truck farm in Beaverton, Oregon. He had planned to leave the country as a laborer but was convinced by Inspector Keagy that it would be better for him if he declared that he was a merchant.
After reviewing all the testimony Immigrant Inspector W. F. Watkins stated in his recommendations: “Chin Mon is a Chinaman of high intelligence, is an old-time resident of this district, an exceedingly industrious and hard-working fellow who lives by the sweat of his brow, well-liked and trusted by his neighbors, and so far as known, with the exception of the present instance, is a law-abiding citizen.” “Chin Mon has equipment and investments in his garden which he values at from $3000 to $3500.” He spent $1500 on legal fees to get Chin Woon landed. Inspector Watkins recommended that the warrant proceedings against Chin Mon be cancelled but Chin Woon was deported and Chin Mon decided his case was hopeless and left at his own expense.
In Chin Mon’s testimony he told about his truck farm. He was in business with Lee Kay who was trying to find someone to purchase Chin Mon’s interest. They grew lettuce, beets, carrots, parsnips, spinach, peas, potatoes, horseradish, cabbage and potatoes. His farming equipment consisted of four plows, three horses, two harrows, four cultivators, two dozen hoes, rakes, and small farm implements, two wagons and one 2-1/2 ton truck, between three and four dozen chickens and $800 worth of hay.
1928 affidavits swearing that Chin Mon was reliable, honest, industrious and hardworking were from:
August Rossi, resident of Beaverton for 42 years and has known Chin Ding (Chin Mon) for eight years.

Doy Gray, cashier at State Bank of Beaverton and has known Chin Ding (Chin Mon) for eight years.

Joe F. Keller, Special Agent in Charge of the Pacific Coast Automobile Underwriters Conference and own of a truck garden farm in Beaverton. and has known Chin Ding (Chin Mon) since 1919.

Chin Fong You, and has known Chin Ding (Chin Mon) for thirteen years.