the question of mootness is whether this change in circumstances prevents any meaningful relief. Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). Stevenson’s claim that the administrative process has moved at a glacial pace presents no opportunity for this court to grant meaningful relief. To declare that undue delay has occurred accomplishes nothing; the SSA has since done that which Stevenson alleges it delayed doing. Although Stevenson now opines that her upcoming hearing may be delayed, that speculation relates to no claim presented by her petition in the district court. Moreover, any relief based on such speculation would require an advisory opinion, in excess of our jurisdiction. Union Pac. R.R. v. Nev. Power Co., 950 F.2d 1429, 1434 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Because Stevenson’s appeal presents no claims
holding remand proper on circuit courts own motion in a workers compensation case where the commission failed to make essential findings of fact because to hold otherwise would in such cases make the determination of the rights of the parties turn upon the neglect of the commission to make essential findings of fact or require the appellate court to make the omitted findings of fact which our statute forbids holding that the court would not make rulings dependent on speculation as to what might happen between the parties in further proceedings holding the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal where the circuit court had the power to remand the agency decision for further proceedings recognizing that a trial court has discretion to adopt or reject an agreement between the parties as part of the original divorcee decree  as equity might dictate holding that communication was initiated by the question well what is going to happen to me now