With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". -, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1156, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011). Thus, “the relevant inquiry is not the subjective or actual purpose of the individuals involved in a particular encounter, but rather the purpose that reasonable participants would have had, as ascertained from the individuals’ statements and actions and the circumstances in which the encounter occurred.” Id. In Orozco-Acosta, we held that warrants of removal are “not made in anticipation of litigation” but are prepared to record the movements of aliens. 607 F.3d at 1163. We have since extended Orozco-Acosta to a number of other A-file documents, concluding that they are likewise not made in anticipation of litigation and thus are non-testimonial. See United States v. Valdovinos-Mendez, 641 F.3d 1031, 1034-35, 1034 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Rojas contends that Orozco-Acosta’s approach

A: holding that driving records were nontestimonial
B: holding that the warrant of removal warning to alien ordered deported and order from the immigration judge were nontestimonial
C: holding that regulations that permitted an immigration official to reinstate removal orders violated the immigration and nationality act
D: holding that the exhaustion requirement of  1252d1 applies only to an alien  challenging a final order of removal and not to  any person
B.