Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): may, however, consider the contents of documents specifically referred to and incorporated into the complaint. Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir.1994). A. Defendant OPM’s Motion to Dismiss 1. Claim for Recovery of Benefits under FEHBA Plaintiffs first cause of action is for recovery of benefits under 5 U.S.C. § 8900, et seq., the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act (“FEHBA”). OPM contends that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim under FEHBA, and thus Plaintiffs first cause of action should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). OPM argues that because Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies under FEHBA, the United States has not yet consented to the suit and jurisdiction is therefore lacking. ( Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). OPM in its agency regulations under FEHBA 
 Holding statements: (A) holding agency claim requirements under the federal torts claim act must be exhausted before district court has jurisdiction (B) holding that a district court must dismiss habeas petitions containing any claims that have not been exhausted in state court (C) holding that administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a claim in court (D) holding on direct review from the bia that bjecause minasyans claim to citizenship is not patently frivolous we have jurisdiction to review it irrespective of whether he has exhausted his claim before the agency (E) holding that a bivens claim cannot be brought against a federal agency
Output (English): holding on direct review from the bia that bjecause minasyans claim to citizenship is not patently frivolous we have jurisdiction to review it irrespective of whether he has exhausted his claim before the agency