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.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
Alaa Abdulkarim MOHSSENI BEHBAHANI, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 84-7011.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 31, 1985.
Decided Aug. 5. 1986.
Zada Edgar-Soto, Tucson, Ariz., for petitioner.
Mark C. Walters, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Before BROWNING, MERRILL and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.
BRUNETTI, Circuit Judge:
Alaa Abdulkarim Mohsseni Behbahani (Mohsseni) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision finding Mohsseni deportable as a nonimmigrant student who overstayed his visa period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2). Mohsseni contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at his deportation hearing because his non-attorney representative: (1) failed to refute the INS’s evidence of deportability; and (2) failed to raise an estoppel defense based on the affirmative misconduct of INS officials. We affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Mohsseni, a native of Iraq and a citizen of Iran, entered the United States in 1978 on a nonimmigrant student visa. In 1980, an IJ found Mohsseni deportable for overstaying his visa and granted him voluntary departure. At his deportation hearing, Mohsseni was represented by Margo Cow-an, an accredited representative. Cowan attempted unsuccessfully to persuade the IJ to subpoena individuals from the INS and certain schools. Mohsseni refused to answer most questions and remained silent when asked to plead to the charges. The IJ concluded that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Mohsseni’s deportability was established by a Form 1-94 that documented his birth abroad.
Cowan appealed to the BIA, contending that the INS had selectively prosecuted Mohsseni based on his Iranian nationality. After considering the issues raised, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding of deportability. Mohsseni, now represented by an attorney, timely filed a petition for review.
II. DISCUSSION
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel present mixed questions of law and fact. Doyle v. United States, 721 F.2d 1195, 1198-99 (9th Cir.1983). This court uses its own judgment as to whether counsel was effective. Id. at 1199. See United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1202-03 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (mixed questions of law and fact generally reviewed de novo), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 101, 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984).
Mohsseni contends that the ineffectiveness of his representative deprived him of a “full and fair deportation hearing” as required by the due process clause of the fifth amendment. Specifically, Mohsseni charges that his representative: (1) failed to introduce evidence refuting the charge of deportability; and (2) failed to develop an estoppel defense based on the INS’s affirmative misconduct of selective prosecution.
In order to prevail on an ineffectiveness of counsel claim, one must show that he was prejudiced by his representative’s performance. Garcia-Jaramillo v. INS, 604 F.2d 1236, 1239 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 828, 101 S.Ct. 94, 66 L.Ed.2d 32 (1980); Nicholas v. INS, 590 F.2d 802, 809 (9th Cir.1979). Mohsseni has failed to demonstrate prejudice.
A. Failure to Introduce Evidence
Mohsseni contends that, as his representative, Cowan incompetently advised him to remain silent, thereby failing to introduce evidence to refute the INS’s evidence establishing deportability. In his brief to this court, however, Mohsseni does not describe the evidence that Cowan incompetently failed to introduce. Without such documentation, we can find no prejudice. Rather, we must presume that Cow-an simply did not possess any evidence refuting deportability. See Paul v. INS, 521 F.2d 194, 199 (5th Cir.1975) (claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must allege facts to allow court “to infer that competent counsel would have acted otherwise”; failure to demonstrate possession of “material information not previously disclosed because of counsel’s incompetence” supports inference that no such information exists).
B. Estoppel Defense
Mohsseni also contends that Cowan incompetently failed to develop or “preserve for the record” the defense that the INS should be estopped by its affirmative misconduct from deporting him. Although Mohsseni describes only vaguely the alleged INS affirmative misconduct, it appears to consist of the Service’s selective enforcement of the immigration laws against Iranians.
Mohsseni has not been prejudiced by Cowan’s failure to raise adequately the selective enforcement defense at the deportation hearing because, the BIA considered and decided the issue on appeal. In her notice of appeal to the BIA, Cowan explained that she had attempted to subpoena individuals at the deportation hearing in support of her selective enforcement defense. The BIA considered and rejected this defense, and cited Yassini v. Crosland, 618 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir.1980) and Narenji v. Civiletti, 617 F.2d 745 (D.C.Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 957, 100 S.Ct. 2928, 64 L.Ed.2d 815 (1980), two cases discussing the legality of the discriminatory treatment of Iranian nationals in light of the hostage crisis. By considering her contentions on appeal, the BIA cured any prejudice caused by Cowan’s shortcomings at trial.
AFFIRMED.
. The sixth amendment right to counsel does not apply in civil deportation proceedings. Ramirez v. INS, 550 F.2d 560, 563 (9th Cir.1977). The right to effective assistance of counsel derives from the fifth amendment due process guarantee of a full and fair hearing. Id. See also Thorsteinsson v. INS, 724 F.2d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1205, 104 S.Ct. 2386, 81 L.Ed.2d 345 (1984).
This court has observed that "there is generally no right to counsel in a civil case.” Nicholson v. Rushen, 767 F.2d 1426, 1427 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam).
. Neither the Transcript of Hearing nor any other evidence in the record indicates that such advice was given.
. Mohsseni’s brief states: "It is Mr. Mohsseni’s contention that he would have been able to maintain his status as a student nonimmigrant had the INS acted in good faith towards him."

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0