
    In re Antonia ALEMAN, Debtor, Elizabeth D. Campos, Appellant, v. Antonia Aleman, Appellee.
    No. 12-60084.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 7, 2014.
    Elizabeth D. Campos, Ventura, CA, pro se.
    Clifton E. Reed, Esquire, Law Office of Clifton E. Reed, Oxnard, CA, for Appellee.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, 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

Elizabeth D. Campos appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) dismissal of her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying her application for waiver of the filing fee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the BAP’s mootness determination, Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Stanley (In re Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc.), 152 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

The BAP properly dismissed Campos’s appeal as moot because the BAP could not provide effective relief to Campos even if it did reverse the fee waiver order because the deadline to file a complaint challenging the dischargeability of the debt, or a motion to extend that deadline, had passed. See Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12, 113 S.Ct. 447, 121 L.Ed.2d 313 (1992) (appeal must be dismissed as moot if it is impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief to the prevailing party); see also Fed. R. Bankr.P. 4007(c) (providing deadline for filing a complaint to determine the dis-chargeability of a debt and explaining that a motion for an extension of that deadline “shall be filed before the time has expired”); Classic Auto Refinishing, Inc. v. Marino (In re Marino), 37 F.3d 1354, 1358 (9th Cir.1994) (noting that the deadline for filing a complaint to determine the dis-chargeability of a debt is “strictly construed” and that, even if equitable powers to extend this deadline did exist, they are “limited to situations where a court explicitly misleads a party” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Because Campos’s appeal is moot, we do not consider her arguments on appeal addressing the underlying merits or the bankruptcy court’s alleged bias.

Campos’s “application for order of default” and “prayer for relief,” filed on September 26, 2013, are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     