22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4b1,MEMORANDUM John Zilei Zhong appeals pro se from the district court judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Zheng’s action brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) challenging his suspension from practice before the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Gallo Cattle Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 159 F.3d 1194, 1196 (9th Cir. 1998), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Zheng’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the IRS’s expedited suspension of Zheng’s right to practice is not a final agency decision. See id. at 1198-99, 1200 (holding that there is no subject matter jurisdiction under the APA in the absence of “final agency action” and explaining when an agency action is “final”); see also 31 C.F.R. §§ 10.60 , 10.82(g); Navajo Nation v. Dep’t of the Interior, 876 F.3d 1144, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2017) (concluding that “[section] 704’s ‘final agency action’ limitation applies only to APA claims”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4de,

MEMORANDUM

John Zilei Zhong appeals pro se from the district court judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Zheng’s action brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) challenging his suspension from practice before the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Gallo Cattle Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 159 F.3d 1194, 1196 (9th Cir. 1998), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Zheng’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the IRS’s expedited suspension of Zheng’s right to practice is not a final agency decision. See id. at 1198-99, 1200 (holding that there is no subject matter jurisdiction under the APA in the absence of “final agency action” and explaining when an agency action is “final”); see also 31 C.F.R. §§ 10.60 , 10.82(g); Navajo Nation v. Dep’t of the Interior, 876 F.3d 1144, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2017) (concluding that “[section] 704’s ‘final agency action’ limitation applies only to APA claims”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.