Estela Maria Hernandez De Montes v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESTELA MARIA HERNANDEZ DE
MONTES,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72065
Agency No. A075-304-149
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued July 12, 2017; Resubmitted August 22, 2017
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and MARSHALL,** District
Judge.
Petitioner Estela Maria Hernandez De Montes petitions for review of an
order by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying Petitioner’s third motion to
reopen to reapply for asylum, for withholding of removal and relief under the
FILED
AUG 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall, Senior United States District Judge
for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

Convention Against Torture, and to reapply for cancellation of removal (the
“Motion”). The Motion sought relief based on Petitioner’s husband’s then-existing
medical condition—“end stage renal failure awaiting availability of an organ
transplantation,” which “requires hemodialysis three (3) times per week.”
Petitioner’s husband has since received a kidney transplant.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. See Pilate v. Burrell (In re
Burrell), 415 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A case is moot if the issues presented
are no longer live and there fails to be a ‘case or controversy’ under Article III of
the Constitution.”); Pub. Utils. Comm’n v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir.
1996) (“The court must be able to grant effective relief, or it lacks jurisdiction and
must dismiss the appeal.”).
DISMISSED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --