Case Name: BYONG SEOL SONG, a.k.a. Byoung Song, a.k.a. Byoung Seoul Song; MI K Song, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-06
Citations: 452 F. App'x 783
Docket Number: No. 06-73299
Parties: BYONG SEOL SONG, a.k.a. Byoung Song, a.k.a. Byoung Seoul Song; MI K Song, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 452
Pages: 783–783

Head Matter:
BYONG SEOL SONG, a.k.a. Byoung Song, a.k.a. Byoung Seoul Song; MI K Song, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73299.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 6, 2011.
Deborah Ann Dyson, Goswami, Strand & Seaborn, Suhi Koizumi, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Edward John Duffy, Jonathan F. Potter, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
Memorandum disposition withdrawn and replaced by order dated April 27, 2012. For replacing opinion, see 2012 WL 1454551.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Byong Seol Song and Mi K Song, natives and citizens of South Korea, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's findings of fact. Kim v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1100, 1102 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding of removability by clear and convincing evidence. See id. at 1103.
Petitioners lack standing to assert their equal protection contention because "they do not belong to the class of returning [Lawful Permanent Residents] who are allegedly similarly situated to applicants for admission." Id. at 1104.
Petitioners' remaining contention is not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.