Task: songer_genresp1

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
Your task is to determine the nature of the first listed respondent.

HAMLEY, Circuit Judge.
This proceeding was commenced in the district court as one to judicially review, and obtain a declaratory judgment concerning, an order entered on October 11, 1961 by the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). The district court transferred the cause to this court purportedly pursuant to section 5(b) of Public Law 87-301, 75 Stat. 651, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a).
The Board order of October 11, 1961 resulted from a deportation proceeding which was instituted against petitioner on October 7, 1960. In the order to show cause by which those proceedings were initiated, it was charged that petitioner was subject to deportation on three charges under section 241(a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (1). Pursuant to this order a deportation hearing was held on October 14, November 8, and December 21, 1960. At this hearing petitioner filed an application for permission to reapply for admission into the United States after deportation or removal, nunc pro tunc, as of March 28, 1960.
On March 10, 1961, the special inquiry officer before whom the matter was heard rendered his decision denying' the application to reapply for admission and ordering deportation on all three charges. While petitioner had made no formal application for waiver of grounds of ex-cludability, the special inquiry officer considered applications as having been made nunc pro tunc as of April 26, 1960, under sections 5 and 7 of the Act of September 11, 1957, and denied these applications.
Although entitled to do so, petitioner took no appeal from this decision to the Board. On March 27, 1961, however, he filed with the Immigration and Naturalization Service a motion denominated “Petition for Reconsideration.” This motion was denied by the special inquiry officer on March 31, 1961, it being stated in the order of denial that no matters were presented which were not fully considered in the decision of March 10, 1961. Petitioner took no appeal from this order to the Board.
On May 1, 1961, petitioner filed a motion denominated “Petition to Reopen, Reconsider and for Permission to Apply for Suspension of Deportation.” On May 5, 1961, this motion was denied by the special inquiry officer. Insofar as the petition sought a reopening of the deportation proceeding and a reconsideration of the order of deportation, the denial was on the ground that no new matters were presented which were not fully considered in the decisions of March 10 and 31, 1961. The reason stated by the special inquiry officer in this order for denying the application for suspension of deportation was that petitioner was statutorily ineligible for such relief.
On May 12, 1961, petitioner appealed to the Board from the order of May 5, 1961. The Board dismissed this appeal on October 11, 1961. The proceeding now before us was then commenced in the district court and transferred here.
Respondent Service contends that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding as it is assertedly not one to review a final order of deportation. In this connection our attention is called to the fact that petitioner did not appeal to the Board from the order of deportation of March 10, 1961, and to the fact that the appeal which was taken to the Board was of limited scope.
We agree. Petitioner did not pursue his administrative remedy by appealing to the Board from the order of deportation entered on March 10, 1961. The only appeal taken to the Board was that of May 12, 1961. This appeal was from the order of May 5, 1961, denying a motion for reconsideration of the order of deportation and an application for suspension of deportation. While certain recitals in the notice of appeal dated May 12, 1961 purportedly draw into question the order of March 10, 1961, the appeal was untimely for any such purpose.
By reason of petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies the order of deportation entered March 10, 1961 is not subject to judicial review. Siaba-Fernandez v. Rosenberg, 9 Cir., 302 F.2d 139, 141.
The actions of the special inquiry officer in denying the second motion for reconsideration, and in denying the application for suspension of deportation, were properly brought before the Board on appeal. The Board’s order of October 11, 1961 constitutes a disposition of those matters. But neither of these actions by the special inquiry officer constituted an order of deportation. It follows that the Board’s order of October 11, 1961 does not constitute a final order of deportation.
Under section 106(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a as added by section 5(a) of Public Law 87-301, 75 Stat. 651, jurisdiction is conferred upon this court to review “ * * * all final orders of deportation * * We have recently held that, as so limited by statute, this court does not have jurisdiction to review an order of the Board denying a motion made before it to reopen a deportation proceeding in which a deportation order has previously been entered and has become final. It follows that we do not have jurisdiction to review a Board order dismissing an appeal from an order of a special inquiry officer denying a motion for reconsideration of a final order of deportation.
What is said above with regard to the motion for reconsideration is true also concerning the application for suspension of deportation. Gallegos v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 9 Cir., 310 F.2d 688.
It is ordered that this matter be re-transferred to the District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division.
. Plaintiff invoked the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and certain provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1282(f-h).
. Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, § 242.21(e) provides:
“(c) Time for talcing appeal. An appeal shall be taken within ten days after the mailing of a written decision or of a typewritten copy of an oral decision or the service of a summary decision on Form 1-38 or 1-39.”
. A special inquiry officer has authority to entertain a motion to reopen or reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 8.1. His decision thereon may be appealed to the Board. 8 C.F.R. §§ 6.1(b) (2), 8.11(e).
. Gallegos v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 9 Cir., 310 F.2d 688; Giova v. Rosenberg, 9 Cir., 308 F.2d 347. See, also, Arreche-Barcelona v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 9 Cir., 310 F.2d 690; Holz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 9 Cir., 309 F.2d 452; Mai Kai Fong v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 9 Cir., 305 F.2d 239. Cf. Fong v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 9 Cir., 308 F.2d 191.

Question: What is the nature of the first listed respondent?
A. private business (including criminal enterprises)
B. private organization or association
C. federal government (including DC)
D. sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
E. state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
F. government - level not ascertained
G. natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
H. miscellaneous
I. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: C