
    Byong Seol SONG, a.k.a. Byoung Song, a.k.a. Byoung Seoul Song and 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 April 27, 2012.
    Haitham Edward Bailout, Esquire, Law Offices of Haitham E. Bailout, Burlingame, CA, Deborah Ann Dyson, Goswami, Strand & Seaborn, Suhi Koizumi, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Edward John Duffy, OIL, 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, arid MURGUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   ORDER

On March 30, 2012, the Board of Immigration Appeals reopened the proceedings in this case as to Mi K Song. Because there is no longer a final order of removal for Ms. Song, we withdraw the memorandum disposition filed on October 6, 2011. A replacement memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this order.

MEMORANDUM

Byong Seol Song and Mi K Song, natives and citizens of South Korea, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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 dismiss the petition for review as to Mi K Song, Agency No. [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ]. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review as to Byong Seol Song, Agency No. [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ].

On March 30, 2012, the BIA reopened the proceedings in this case as to Mi K Song. We therefore dismiss the petition for review as to Mi K Song because there is no longer a final order for her removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).

As to Byong Seol Song, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding of re-movability by clear and convincing evidence. See id. at 1103.

Byong Seol Song lacks standing to assert his equal protection contention because he “do[es] not belong to the class of returning [Lawful Permanent Residents] who are allegedly similarly situated to applicants for admission.” Id. at 1104.

Byong Seol Song’s remaining contention is not persuasive.

As to Mi K Song, Agency No. [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ]: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

As to Byong Seol Song, Agency No. [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ]: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     