
    John Zilei ZHONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-55549
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed February 5, 2018
    John Zilei Zhong, Pro Se
    William Carl Hankla, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Teresa Ellen McLaughlin, Attorney, Patrick J. Urda, Esquire, General Attorney, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, James Costello Hughes, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA — -Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee United States of America
    Teresa Ellen McLaughlin, Attorney, Patrick J. Urda, Esquire, General Attorney, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appel-lees Department of Treasury, United States Internal Revenue Service
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   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.
     