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 appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Your task is to determine the citizenship of this litigant as indicated in the opinion.

Opinion:
QUAN WING SEUNG v. NAGLE, Commissioner of Immigration.
No. 6085.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
May 19, 1930.
Stephen M. White, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Geo. J. Hatfield, U. S. Atty., and Hubert Wyekoff, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before RUDKIN and WILBUR, Circuit Judges, and KERRIGAN, District Judge.
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
Quan Tin Sing applied for writ of .habeas corpus on behalf of his alleged son, Quan Wing Seung. The alleged son was bom August 12, 1912. The alleged father had never seen the alleged son until he arrived in San Francisco. In 1911 the alleged father testified that he had no children, whereas in 1925 • he testified that he had a son, Quan Km Wing, who was bom in 1906, and who was then seeking admission as his son. The record is replete with alleged discrepancies, but, in view of the false testimony given by the father in an effort to secure the admission of an alleged son, we cannot say that a fair hearing was denied because the immigration authorities did not believe his testimony in the present instance.
Judgment affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". What is the citizenship of this litigant as indicated in the opinion?

Choices:
not ascertained
US citizen
alien

Answer: 2