
    Hana HILSENRATH and Oliver Hilsenrath, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Nana Hilsenrath; et al., Plaintiffs, v. The SWISS CONFEDERATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-17127.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 2, 2010.
    Hana Hilsenrath, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Oliver Hilsenrath, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Stephan E. Becker, Esquire, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Washington, DC, Sharon L. O’Grady, Esquire, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hana Hilsenrath and Oliver Hilsenrath appeal pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing their action against the Swiss Confederation and Swiss government officials alleging violation of their rights under the United States Constitution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Af-Cap, Inc. v. Chevron Overseas (Congo) Ltd., 475 F.3d 1080, 1085-86 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The Hilsenraths alleged that the Swiss Confederation, the Federal Attorney General of Switzerland and an employee of the Swiss Attorney General violated the Hilsenraths’ constitutional rights when they froze the Hilsenraths’ Swiss bank assets during the course of a criminal investigation into allegedly illicit financial dealings. The district court properly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Swiss government and its employees are immune from this action under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq. (“FSIA”) and the Hilsenraths did not establish the applicability of any of the FSIA’s exceptions to sovereign immunity. See Security Pacific Nat. Bank v. Derderian, 872 F.2d 281, 285 (9th Cir.1989) (if the “claim does not fall within one of the exceptions, the court cannot entertain the action” and it must dismiss the action against the foreign state).

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