Case Name: BYUN HOON CHUNG; Duk Bong Chung; Myung Bin Chung; Kuo Chul Chung, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General; Department of Homeland Security; Michael Chertoff, Secretary of DHS, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-28
Citations: 333 F. App'x 257
Docket Number: No. 08-16864
Parties: BYUN HOON CHUNG; Duk Bong Chung; Myung Bin Chung; Kuo Chul Chung, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General; Department of Homeland Security; Michael Chertoff, Secretary of DHS, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 257–257

Head Matter:
BYUN HOON CHUNG; Duk Bong Chung; Myung Bin Chung; Kuo Chul Chung, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General; Department of Homeland Security; Michael Chertoff, Secretary of DHS, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-16864.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Sept. 28, 2009.
Alex C. Park, Esquire, Santa Clara, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Edward Alan Olsen, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Byung Hoon Chung and Duk Bong Chung, and their children, Myung Bin Chung and Kou Chul Chung, natives and citizens of South Korea, appeal the district court's dismissal of their action for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Puri v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.
The district court lacked jurisdiction over the Chungs' action challenging their removal order because it was filed after the effective date of the REAL ID Act. See id. at 1041 ("[Ajfter May 11, 2005, the only means for judicial review of [petitioner's] removal order was a petition for review in this court."). Moreover, the Chungs exercised their right to file a petition for review, which we denied in Chung v. Holder, 312 Fed.Appx. 950 (9th Cir.2009).
Finally, the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., does not apply to removal proceedings. See Marcello v. Bonds, 349 U.S. 302, 309-10, 75 S.Ct. 757, 99 L.Ed. 1107 (1955).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.