Tag Archives: Washington DC

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.

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.

Quan Foy, Chinese Interpreter

Chinese interpreter, Extention Application, photo, , , , , , , , ,
Quan Foy photo 1908
Quan Foy, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Quan Foy file, Box 925, Case 7032/1398.

Quan Foy’s uniform cap says ” U.S.I. S. Interpreter” [United States Immigration Service]. He is also wearing a badge.

On 12 September 1908, Quan Foy was advised that on 8 May 1908, the Bureau of Immigration with the approval of the Department of Commerce and Labor he was granted thirty days annual leave of absence and two hundred and twenty days leave without pay to give him the opportunity to visit his former home in China. After his return he would resume his duties as Chinese Interpreter in Sumas, Washington. He left Sumas on 27 October 1908.

A letter dated 11 July 1908, stated that he would be entitled to bring his wife into the U.S. when he returned from China at the expiration of the leave provided his status remained the same. The letter was signed by H. Edsell, Chinese Inspector in Charge at Sumas. 

In August 1931, Quay Foy and his wife applied for immigration return permits. They had not been to China since 1909, and Quan Foy’s employment records was above reproach.. The immigration inspectors had a hard time deciding if he should be classified as a traveler or a laborer. Their permits were denied, but they were granted laborers’ return certificate. The leave was for seven months without pay.

The next item in Quan Foy’s file is a 1941 letter from R. F. Bonham, District Director of the Seattle Office to Mr. Thomas D. Shoemaker, Immigration and Naturalization Service in Washington, D.C.  Bonham writes that in 1933 Quan Foy lost his job because of reductions in staff. Bonham didn’t know why Quan was let go instead of someone else. He thought he “should have put up a battle royal to keep him in the service.”

After Quan Foy was let go, he went back to China, leaving his family here. His children were all born in the U.S. He came back to San Francisco in 1939 as a visitor and in 1941 asked for an extension. Bonham wrote to Shoemaker, “I earnestly hope that this very deserving gentleman may be from time to time granted an extension of his visit, so that he may spend his declining years with his sons and daughters. As you know, there are very few people in whose behalf I would write this kind of a letter, and I do it without any mental reservations whatsoever.”

“Correspondence, Wixon: Bonham, re: Quan Foy,” 1944, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Quan Foy file, Box 925, Case 7032/1398.

[Even though everyone thought very highly of Quan Foy, and the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed in 1943, he had to apply for an extension every year to stay in the U.S.]

His last extension was granted until February 18, 1947. He would be required to leave the U.S. if his next extension was not granted.

The last document in his file is a letter stating Quan Foy died in San Francisco on 3 January 1947.  “Quan Foy was Chinese Interpreter at Seattle for very many years and was one of the most respected employees of this Service on this coast, of acknowledged and exceptional integrity.”

Updated 26 May 2024