Doug Ng’s cousin, Debbie Jiang, found information on Doug’s grandfather, Ng Sen Wing, and great Grandfather on the blog. Doug Ng and his wife, Dorian, who live in Florida, were visiting family on the west coast so Doug sent a request to National Archives-Seattle to see his Chinese Exclusion Act family files. Ng Sen Wing and family owned a vegetable farm in Jacksonville, Florida in the early to mid-1900s. Ng’s file was extremely rich in information. Besides photos of four family members, the file contains the file numbers for Ng Sen Wing’s wife, his parents, three brothers, five nieces and nephews, and three sisters-in-laws. This enabled Doug to request to see those files also.
Doug and Dorian visited NARA-Seattle yesterday. It was so much fun to see how excited they were to read the family files.
Doug Ng holding a document from Ng Sen Wing file. RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Sen Wing, 7030/351 Below: Doug and Dorian Ng, Dorian, Trish & Doug with documents from the file
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 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, 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.]
“Chin Suey Tin (Arthur Chin), Form 430 photo,” 1932, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Chin Suey Tin (Arthur Chin) case file, Portland, Box 102, 1209/614.
[See CEA Blog entry for Virginia Wong on 1 May 2017 for more information on the World War II Chinese combat pilots who trained in Portland, Oregon.]
Arthur Chin (Chin Suey Tin) was born on 22 October 1913 at Good Samaritan Hospital in Portland, Oregon, the son of Chin Fon and Eva Wong (Wong Gue Tai). In 1922 at age eight, he visited China with his family. They stayed fourteen months. He attended Atkinson Grammar School and Benson Polytechnic High School in Portland.
He applied to visit China in August 1932 to visit his sick grandmother. In his application he stated he had three sisters: Mildred, Dorothy and Evelyn, and two brothers; Harold and Norman. He left for China in August. A few months later, in November, he enlisted as a fighter pilot for the Chinese Air Force to fight in the Japanese-Chinese war. He became a war hero.
Although Arthur Chin was born in Portland, Oregon, he lost his U.S. citizenship when he joined the Chinese Air Force. He married in China and his two sons were born in Hong Kong. Because of his lost citizenship, his sons, Gilbert and Stephen, were not considered U.S. citizens.
His wife was killed in the war. Major Chin was injured with severe burns and was returned to the United States at Miami, Florida on 25 July 1942 as a war casualty. He was hospitalized for over two years. He was released from the service of the Chinese Air Force on 1 February 1945.
In 1944 his 1922 Certificate of Identification was returned to him. He was repatriated in July 1945 in the U.S. District Court, Portland, Oregon. According to his second wife, Frances, in 1945 Arthur Chin was flying for PanAm Airlines and based in Calcutta, India.
Arthur Chin’s 1945 naturalization #D-376 is mentioned in the file.
[ Much is written about Arthur Chin but his Chinese Exclusion Act case file usually is not mentioned.]
