Act. The APA is the sole means for challenging the legality of federal agency action unless “a party challenges an agency action as violating a federal law ... that has been interpreted as conferring a private right of action, or where a particular regulatory scheme contains a specialized provision for obtaining judicial review of agency actions under the scheme.... ” Clouser v. Espy, 42 F.3d 1522, 1528 n. 5 (9th Cir.1994). Appellants do not fall within either of the above exceptions. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed appellants’ claim under the Quiet Title Act. The only basis for jurisdiction in this action is under the APA and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Prods. Co., 436 U.S. 604, 607-08 n. 6, 98 S.Ct. 2002, 2004-05 n. 6, 56 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978) (<HOLDING>). III. We agree with the district court’s
holding that  ijinguistic consistency  required that the same arising under test be applied to the jurisdictional statute for patent claims 28 usc  1338a as is used for the general federal jurisdiction statute 28 usc  1331 holding that 28 usc  1331 does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity holding that statutes conferring general jurisdiction including 28 usc  1331 do not waive sovereign immunity holding that subject matter jurisdiction to review department of the interior decisions voiding mining claims is conferred by 28 usc  1331 recognizing the possibility that 28 usc  1331 supplies jurisdiction for violations of international law but not reaching the ultimate merits of the issue