
    IN RE: Francisco Javier HERNANDEZ and Jacqueline Marie Hernandez, Debtors. Francisco Javier Hernandez, AKA Francisco Hernandez; Jacqueline Marie Hernandez, AKA Jacqueline Hernandez, Appellants, v. Martha G. Bronitsky, Chapter 13 Trustee, Appellee.
    No. 17-60043
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 13, 2018 
    
    Filed March 23, 2018
    Mark W. Lapham, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Mark W. Lapham, Danville, CA, for Appellants
    Leo George Spanos, Attorney, Chapter 13 Trustee, Hayward, CA, for Appellee
    
      Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Chapter 13 debtors Francisco Javier Hernandez and Jacqueline Marie Hernandez appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing their appeal for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). We have an independent obligation to determine our jurisdiction over this appeal before proceeding to the merits. Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Med. Grp., 782 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2015). We dismiss this appeal as moot.

During the pendency of this appeal, we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction debtors’ separate appeal challenging the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing their bankruptcy case. Because the bankruptcy court’s dismissal order has become final, there is no effective relief we can give to debtors in this appeal and we dismiss this appeal as moot. See Castaic Partners II, LLC v. Daca-Castaic, LLC (In re Castaic Partners II, LLC), 823 F.3d 966, 968-69 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The test for mootness of an appeal is whether the appellate court can give the appellant any effective relief in the event that it decides the matter on the merits in his favor” (citation omitted)).

Because we dismiss the appeal as moot, we do not consider debtors’ arguments addressing the underlying merits of the appeal.

DISMISSED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
     