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.
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 concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "other agency, beginning with "F" thru "N"". Your task is to determine which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
TAKAJI MUKAI v. BURNETT, District Director.
No. 6888.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Dec. 19, 1932.
J. Edward Keating and Theodore E. Bowen, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Samuel W. McNabb, U. S. Atty., and Harry G. Balter, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal. (Harry B. Blee, Immigration Service, of Los Angeles, Cal., on the brief), 1 for appellee.
Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Takaji Mukai, entered the United States in April, 1925. At that time he had no immigration visa and was not entitled to enter the United States. Ozawa v. United States, 260 U. S. 178, 43 S. Ct. 65, 67 L. Ed. 199; section 13 (e), Immigration Act of 1924 (8 USCA 213(e). He is subject to deportation under section 14 of the Immigration Act of 19214 (8 USCA § 214). Appellant contends that the deportation proceeding is barred by reason of the fact that more than five years have expired from the time of his first entry, which occurred more than five years prior to the initiation of the deportation proceeding. In support of his contention he relies upon the provisions of section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (8 USCA § 155), and the amendment contained in section 14 of the Immigration Act of 1924. This contention has been decided adversely to the appellant in Philippides v. Day, 283 U. S. 48, 51 S. Ct. 358, 75 L. Ed. 833, and U. S. v. Vanbiervliet, 284 U. S. 590, 52 S. Ct. 132, 76 L. Ed. —-. See, also, United States ex rel. Leo Stapf v. Corsi, 53 S. Ct. 40, 77 L. Ed. —-, decided by the Supreme Court November 7, 1932; Hendriksen v. Weedin, 61 F.(2d) 1030, decided by this court November 16, 1932.
Order affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "other agency, beginning with "F" thru "N"". Which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant?

Choices:
Food & Drug Administration
General Services Administration
Government Accounting Office (GAO)
Health Care Financing Administration
Immigration & Naturalization Service (includes border patrol)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Interstate Commerce Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
National Credit Union Association
National Labor Relations Board
Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Answer: 4