
    Estela Maria Hernandez DE MONTES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72065
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued July 12, 2017
    Resubmitted August 22, 2017 San Francisco, California
    Filed August 24, 2017
    Inna Lipkin, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices of Inna Lipkin, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioner
    Nancy Ellen Friedman, Trial Attorney, OIL, Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: GRABER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and MARSHALL, District Judge.
    
      
      The Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation,
    
   MEMORANDUM

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