and seeking confirmation of an alleged arbitration award against WFF Alaska. In No. 05-35723, the Martins appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their application to confirm two similar arbitration awards against WFF Alaska’s parent corporation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “[E]ven when a petition is brought under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a petitioner seeking to confirm or vacate an arbitration award in federal court must establish an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” Carter v. Health Net of Cal., Inc., 374 F.3d 830, 833 (9th Cir. 2004). Although the Martins raised questions of federal law under the FDCPA, those claims are derivative of their petition for confirmation, which raises no question of federal law. See id. at 836 (<HOLDING>). Because we conclude there was no basis for
holding that petitions for confirmation or vacatur must show how the ultimate disposition of the matter by the federal court necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law holding that the power of a federal court to hear and to determine statelaw claims in nondiversity cases depends upon the presence of at least one substantial federal claim in the lawsuit holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court holding that if the resolution of a statelaw claim depends upon the meaning of a collectivebargaining agreement the application of state law  is preempted and federal laborlaw principles  necessarily uniform throughout the nation  must be  employed to resolve the dispute holding that federal law governs res judicata effect of an earlier federal judgment based on federal law