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:
KAMINER et al. v. CLARK, Attorney General of the United States, et al.
No. 10267.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued June 30, 1949.
Decided July 11, 1949.
Writ of Certiorari Denied Nov. 7, 1949.
See 70 S.Ct. 147.
Mr. Irving Jaffe, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Jack Wasserman and Thomas Cooley, II, Washington, D. C, were on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Charles B. Murray, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, and Messrs. Ross O’Donoghue and Samuel K. Abrams, Assistant United States Attorneys, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees. Mr. Joseph M. Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellees.
Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Leon Kaminer, is an alien who arrived at the Port of New York and sought to enter the United States. On the ground that to admit him would be prejudicial to the best interests of the nation, the Attorney General ordered that he be excluded and deported. This action was taken under regulations promulgated pursuant to a presidential proclamation, which in turn was based upon an act of June 21, 1941. That statute empowers the President, in time of war or other national emergency, to proclaim restrictions and prohibitions upon the departure of persons from, and their entry into, the United States.
Kaminer sued the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Immigration in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a declaratory judgment that the act referred to, as implemented by the proclamation and regulations thereunder, be declared unconstitutional; that deportation or further detention without a hearing be declared illegal and void; that a hearing be granted; and that meanwhile the order of deportation be suspended and release on bond be permitted.
A statutory three-judge court held constitutional the act of Congress pursuant to which the executive action was taken, and remanded the cause to a single judge for such further proceedings as might be appropriate. Thereupon the District Court dismissed the complaint as amended, and this appeal followed.
While this suit is for a declaratory judgment, it is substantially similar to an application for a writ of habeas corpus, because, in addition to the claim of unconstitutionality, it com plains that the appellant’s detention without a hearing is unlawful. Habeas corpus would lie only in the Southern District of New York, where the appellant was detained on Ellis Island at the time this suit was instituted. An action for declaratory judgment cannot be substituted for habeas corpus so as to give jurisdiction to a district other than that in which the applicant is confined or restrained. If the appellant has a right to the sort of declaratory judgment which he seeks, he must assert it in the Southern District of New York, as he would be required to do if he had elected to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. The District Court properly dismissed the action, because it lacked jurisdiction.
We express no opinion, and mean to intimate none, as to whether the appellant is entitléd either to a writ of habeas corpus or to a declaratory judgment.
Affirmed.
There were originally three appellants, but- two of them have abandoned their appeals.
55 Stat. 252, 22 U.S.C.A. §§ 223 to 226b.
Ahrens v. Clark, 1948, 335 U.S. 188, 68 S.Ct. 1443, 92 L.Ed. 1898.
Clark v. Memolo, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C.—, 174 F.2d 978.

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