OPINION

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Sami Hamdi, the minor child of an undocumented immigrant, filed a complaint under the Declaratory Judgment Act ("DJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 702, to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") from removing his mother on the ground that the mother's removal violated his own constitutional rights as an American citizen. Hamdi is severely disabled and is dependent on his mother's care. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), finding that Hamdi brought his complaint "on behalf of" his mother and that no other statutory or nonstatutory laws provided jurisdiction. Hamdi appeals, arguing first that the "on behalf of any alien" language in § 1252(g) does not bar jurisdiction over an action brought under the DJA to protect the distinct constitutional rights of a minor child affected by a parent's removal proceedings, and, second, that the Constitution, international law, and "the customs and usages of civilized nations" provide jurisdiction under the APA for a minor child to challenge a parent's removal proceedings. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Hamdi's arguments are without merit and that the district court was correct to dismiss Hamdi's complaint, although we ground our decision on the basis that Hamdi has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 26, 2009, Hamdi filed a complaint under the DJA and the APA requesting that the district court declare that DHS's removal proceeding involving his mother, Fatiha Elgharib, is contrary to law under the U.S. Constitution and international law because Hamdi is a U.S. citizen, has Down syndrome and numerous medical issues, and is dependent on his mother for his care and well-being. Specifically, Hamdi's complaint alleges:

Dist. Ct. Doc. ("Doc.") 2 (Compl. at ¶¶ 10-14). Hamdi claimed jurisdiction was proper in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under the DJA and the APA because

Id. (Compl. Jurisdictional Statement) (formatting errors in original).

DHS filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on February 11, 2009, in lieu of an answer to the complaint, asserting first that Hamdi did not have standing to bring the suit without a separable injury from his mother's removal proceeding, and, alternatively, that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) and (g) preclude jurisdiction and the complaint failed to establish jurisdiction under the DJA, the APA, or other international laws. Hamdi responded on February 20, 2009. In a March 6, 2009 decision, the district court rejected DHS's contention that Hamdi could not satisfy standing requirements because it found that Hamdi's allegation that his mother's removal would deprive him of his primary caregiver was a sufficient injury in fact. Doc. 11 (Dist. Ct. Op. at 2-3). However, the court granted DHS's motion to dismiss, concluding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) barred Hamdi's complaint as one initiated "on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to . . . execute removal orders against any alien."1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). The district court construed "on behalf of" as analogous to "in the interest of," and it found that Hamdi's complaint fell within § 1252(g) because Hamdi's only redress was to prevent his mother's removal—something that his mother had been unsuccessful in accomplishing previously through separate litigation. Doc. 11 (Dist. Ct. Op. at 4 (citing United States v. Romero, 293 F.3d 1120, 1126 (9th Cir.2002) (interpreting the "on behalf of" language under the Sentencing Guidelines with reference to WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY))).

The district court also rejected Hamdi's other asserted bases for subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that neither the DJA nor the APA could provide independent sources of subject-matter jurisdiction, that none of the treaties Hamdi cited were binding, and that Hamdi had failed to establish how any alleged "customs and usages of civilized nations" could provide a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. (Dist. Ct. Op. at 5-7). In the same order, the district court anticipatorily denied a motion to stay Hamdi's mother's removal pending appeal. Id. at 7-8.

Hamdi appeals from the dismissal of his claims.2 A separate panel of this court denied Hamdi's motion to stay his mother's removal pending this appeal, but, on April 2, 2009, DHS, through the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency ("ICE"), stayed her removal for one year.

II. ANALYSIS

We review de novo a district-court decision to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and we accept any factual findings that the district court made in its analysis unless it committed clear error.3 Davis v. United States, 499 F.3d 590, 593-94 (6th Cir.2007).

On appeal, the parties focused their briefing on whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) barred the district court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over Hamdi's complaint and whether Hamdi was sufficiently aggrieved by agency action to state a claim providing subject-matter jurisdiction under the APA. Neither the parties nor the district court discussed whether Hamdi could assert subject-matter jurisdiction under general federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and whether the district court, by grounding its decision in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), avoided the potential jurisdictional impact of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) that DHS raised below. Although neither party specifically addressed 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on appeal, we are "`under an independent obligation to examine' [our] own jurisdiction," Baird v. Norton, 266 F.3d 408, 410 (6th Cir.2001) (quoting FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990)), and that of the district court to determine whether Hamdi's complaint could be adjudicated under any grounds supported in the complaint, Estate of Mueller v. Comm'r, 153 F.3d 302, 304 (6th Cir.1998). We may determine that the motion to dismiss for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction should have been denied if facts pleaded in the complaint are sufficient to infer jurisdiction. O'Bryan v. Holy See, 556 F.3d 361, 375-76 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 361, 175 L.Ed.2d 27 (2009); 5B CHARLES A. WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1350, at 200-01 (3d ed.2004) ("[I]f the allegation of the district court's jurisdiction is insufficient or entirely lacking but there are facts pleaded in the complaint from which the court's jurisdiction may be inferred, then the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) motion also must be denied."). However, we may affirm the district court's dismissal for reasons other than those stated if dismissal is appropriate. Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603, 609 (6th Cir.2009); Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479-80 (6th Cir.1999).

We will address each jurisdictional issue in turn, taking care to remember "a familiar principle of statutory construction: the presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action." Kucana v. Holder, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 130 S.Ct. 827, 839, ___ L.Ed.2d ___, ___ (2010). Even so, we address these issues mindful that the Supreme Court recently reasserted that "[a] statute affecting federal jurisdiction `must be construed both with precision and with fidelity to the terms by which Congress has expressed its wishes.'" Id. at 840 (quoting Cheng Fan Kwok v. INS, 392 U.S. 206, 212, 88 S.Ct. 1970, 20 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1968)).

A. The Jurisdictional Bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) Does Not Apply to Independent Actions Brought by a Citizen Child Raising Distinct Constitutional Rights

The district court dismissed Hamdi's complaint in part on the basis of the jurisdictional bar in § 1252(g). Section 1252(g) precludes the federal courts from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over "any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by [DHS]4 to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). DHS maintains that the district court properly interpreted Hamdi's complaint as brought "on behalf of" his mother, an alien in removal proceedings, because his allegations and the relief requested are "in the interest of" his mother and inextricably intertwined with his mother's removal order. Hamdi argues that this action is brought "on behalf of" himself to enforce his own constitutional rights violated by the order of his mother's removal and that his mother is only an incidental beneficiary in the action. We agree with Hamdi, and conclude that § 1252(g) does not preclude the district court from exercising jurisdiction over Hamdi's complaint because the complaint adequately raises his independent claims on his own behalf.

The proper interpretation of the "on behalf of" language in § 1252(g) is a matter of first impression in this circuit (and apparently in all circuits). We review de novo such questions of statutory interpretation, United States v. Parrett, 530 F.3d 422, 429 (6th Cir.2008), employing a three-step legislative-interpretation framework established by the Supreme Court: "`first, a natural reading of the full text; second, the common-law meaning of the statutory terms; and finally, consideration of the statutory and legislative history for guidance,'" Lockhart v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 251, 255 (6th Cir.2009) (quoting United States ex rel. A+ Homecare, Inc. v. Medshares Mgmt. Group, Inc., 400 F.3d 428, 442 (6th Cir.2005) (citing United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482, 490-92, 117 S.Ct. 921, 137 L.Ed.2d 107 (1997))). The "natural reading of the full text" requires that we examine the statute for its plain meaning, including "`the language and design of the statute as a whole.'" Id. (quoting Parrett, 530 F.3d at 429). "If the statutory language is not clear, we may examine the relevant legislative history." Parrett, 530 F.3d at 429.

We conclude that Hamdi's claims do not fall within the meaning of § 1252(g). Although many courts have dismissed actions brought by, or asserting the rights of, a citizen child, few courts have addressed § 1252(g). Dictionary definitions are not extremely helpful to our analysis. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (9th ed.2009) does not define the phrase "on behalf of" or "behalf"5; MERRIAM-WEBSTER (11th ed.2004) defines the phrase as "in the interest of; also: as a representative of," and further defines "behalf" as "interest, benefit; also: support, defense." We have found only two courts that have directly addressed the impact of § 1252(g) on a citizen child's complaint. In Kruer v. Gonzales, No. 05-120-DLB, 2005 WL 1529987 (E.D.Ky. June 28, 2005) (unpublished opinion), the district court rejected the applicability of the jurisdictional bars in § 1252(a)(5)6 and (g) because "the face of the children's Petition does not indicate it is being brought on their mother's behalf, though this be the indirect result of their filing," and "research reveals no binding authority so interpreting the statute [as brought on the mother's behalf]." Id. at *2 n. 3. The Kruer district court found § 1252(a)(5) implicitly limited its applicability to review sought by the individual subject to the removal order. Id. at *3. With this conclusion, the Kruer district court "accept[ed]" jurisdiction of the citizen children's action and rejected the merits with prejudice. Id. at *9 (summarizing holding by "accepting" that court had jurisdiction and that plaintiffs had standing). In Coleman v. United States, 454 F.Supp.2d 757 (N.D.Ill. 2006), the district court held that § 1252(g) did not apply to bar jurisdiction because the citizen child's suit presented the child's own rights and a separate redressable injury that would only incidentally benefit the immigrant parent. Id. at 763-66. Relying on precedents favoring narrow construction of jurisdictional limits, the district court looked solely to what "the plain text makes clear" and reasoned that "[s]ection 1252(g) does not apply here because that statute does not bar claims by citizens (because such claims are not brought `by. . . any alien') alleging that removal orders violate the citizen's distinct personal rights (because such claims are not `on behalf of any alien')." Id. at 765 (citing Maldonado v. Fasano, 67 F.Supp.2d 1170, 1173-74 (S.D.Cal.1999) (citing Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 470 U.S. 768, 779-80, 105 S.Ct. 1620, 84 L.Ed.2d 674 (1985)); Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603, 108 S.Ct. 2047, 100 L.Ed.2d 632 (1988)).

We find the reasoning in Coleman persuasive. We recognize that the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 are intended to narrow the availability of judicial review for removal orders, precluding federal courts from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over many claims related to a final order of removal. See Kucana, 130 S.Ct. at 838 (emphasizing that Congress's "aggressive[]" amendments to § 1252 were intended "to expedite removal of aliens lacking a legal basis to remain in the United States"); Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. (AADC), 525 U.S. 471, 482-86, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999). We must be cautious, however, not to interpret broadly jurisdiction-stripping provisions in the absence of explicit congressional intent. AADC, 525 U.S. at 480-82, 119 S.Ct. 936; Prado v. Reno, 198 F.3d 286, 290 (1st Cir.1999) ("In [AADC], the Supreme Court taught that interpreting the jurisdiction limiting provisions of IIRIRA requires a close textual reading and that restrictions on jurisdiction should conform tightly to the precise language chosen by Congress.").

While it is in Hamdi's own interest to litigate his claims that his mother's removal order violates his distinct constitutional rights, it plainly would benefit her as well if Hamdi were to be successful and to secure the relief he seeks—judicial review and cancellation of his mother's removal order. One could argue that Hamdi is asking the federal courts to take his mother's substantive arguments and convert them into his own action seeking the relief that she has been denied, but the remedy Hamdi seeks does not dictate the substance of his complaint. Mustata v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017, 1021-23 (6th Cir.1999) (distinguishing an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim asking for a stay of a deportation order from a § 1252(g) challenge to the execution of the order itself); cf. Aguilar v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Div. of the Dep't of Homeland Sec., 510 F.3d 1, 16-17 (1st Cir.2007) (holding § 1252(b)(9) barred 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction even though available on face of undocumented aliens' complaint because "substance trumps form" and "we must look through such easy evasions as creative labeling and consider the fundamental nature of the claims asserted . . . [to not] allow collective end runs around congressional directives" (citing, inter alia, Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 259, 53 S.Ct. 345, 77 L.Ed. 730 (1933); Penhallow v. Doane's Adm'rs, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 54, 1 L.Ed. 507 (1795))). We hold that a complaint brought by a U.S. citizen child who asserts his or her own distinct constitutional rights and separate injury does not fall fairly within the "on behalf of any alien" jurisdictional bar in § 1252(g). Hamdi challenges the constitutionality of the final order of removal for his mother, but his claim asserts his own distinct constitutional rights. Thus, the district court improperly relied upon § 1252(g) in dismissing Hamdi's complaint.

B. The Administrative Procedure Act Does Not Provide Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Here

Hamdi argues in the alternative that his constitutional- and international-law-based claims provide a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction under the APA.7 This circuit has not yet addressed whether the APA can provide jurisdiction for citizen children to challenge immigration proceedings, but we now conclude that Hamdi's attempt to assert subject-matter jurisdiction solely under the APA is unavailing. To utilize the APA, Hamdi must have alleged sufficiently that he is "suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action." 5 U.S.C. § 702; Bangura v. Hansen, 434 F.3d 487, 498-500 (6th Cir.2006). The Supreme Court has held, however, that "[i]mmigration proceedings. . . are not governed by the APA" because "Congress intended the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) . . . to supplant the APA in immigration proceedings."8 Ardestani v. INS, 502 U.S. 129, 133-34, 112 S.Ct. 515, 116 L.Ed.2d 496 (1991) (citing Marcello v. Bonds, 349 U.S. 302, 75 S.Ct. 757, 99 L.Ed. 1107 (1955)); Robert v. Reno, 25 Fed. Appx. 378, 381 (6th Cir.2002) (unpublished opinion) ("The APA simply does not govern immigration proceedings under the INA and may not be used to challenge the hearing provisions of the INA."). But see Acosta v. Gaffney, 558 F.2d 1153, 1156-58 (3d Cir.1977) (holding citizen child had standing under the APA and 8 U.S.C. § 1329 to assert a constitutional challenge to parents' removal but no constitutional right to prohibit removal). As a result, the APA does not provide subject-matter jurisdiction in the instant case to the extent that Hamdi seeks review of his mother's order of removal. Instead, the APA's general waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to non-monetary claims applies to allow Hamdi's distinct constitutional claims to proceed under the district court's general federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, see United States v. City of Detroit, 329 F.3d 515, 520-21 (6th Cir.2003) (en banc), especially in light of "the presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action," Kucana, 130 S.Ct. at 839; see also Ikenokwalu-White v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 919, 925-26 (8th Cir.2007) (reaffirming, in the context of a citizen-child's suit, that "the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., may in some instances serve as a waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity, and through the general federal question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, empower the federal district courts to hear timely appeals from certain Board orders" (citing Sabhari v. Reno, 197 F.3d 938, 942-43 (8th Cir.1999))); accord Ginters v. Frazier, 614 F.3d 822, 826-28 (8th Cir.2010) (affirming the continuing validity of Sabhari after the enactment of § 1252(a)(2)(B) and the Supreme Court's decision in Kucana).

C. Federal-Question Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Is Appropriate

1. A Citizen Child Raising Distinct Constitutional Rights May Assert Federal-Question Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

We agree with the district court that Hamdi has asserted a sufficient injury in fact for standing purposes, but we conclude that the district court erred in not recognizing that the constitutional nature of Hamdi's alleged injury, apparent on the face of the complaint, provided subject-matter jurisdiction as a federal question within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43, 56, 113 S.Ct. 2485, 125 L.Ed.2d 38 (1993) (holding that a challenge to regulations used in adjustment-of-status applications was not lacking a statutory jurisdiction source "since 28 U.S.C. § 1331, generally granting federal question jurisdiction, `confer[s] jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action'" (quoting Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977))). "A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when she pleads a colorable claim `arising under' the Constitution or laws of the United States." Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006).

In addressing Hamdi's standing to bring this claim before the district court and in its arguments related to the APA on appeal, DHS argues that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking because Hamdi has failed to assert a violation of a constitutionally protected right. However, "[j]urisdiction is not defeated by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 89, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Even so, "[a] claim invoking federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. . . may be dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction if it is not colorable, i.e., if it is `immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction' or is `wholly insubstantial and frivolous.'" Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 513 n. 10, 126 S.Ct. 1235 (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946)). We previously have explained the propriety of dismissal on this basis:

Primax Recoveries, Inc. v. Gunter, 433 F.3d 515, 519 (6th Cir.2006); see also Aichai Hu v. Holder, 335 Fed.Appx. 510, 514 (6th Cir.2009) (unpublished opinion) ("A claim is not colorable if it is immaterial and asserted only to support jurisdiction, or if it is utterly insubstantial and frivolous."). Although many circuit-court precedents, including some from this circuit, may undermine Hamdi's constitutional claims, we cannot say that his claims may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the grounds of insubstantiality or frivolousness.9

2. Dismissal Was Proper Because Hamdi Fails to State a Constitutional Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted

Hamdi has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because federal district courts are prohibited from reviewing and vacating a removal order, the ultimate relief that Hamdi seeks. Hamdi's complaint can be reduced to the claim that because Hamdi has constitutional rights that his mother's order of removal adversely affects, and because DHS did not consider Hamdi's rights in imposing his mother's order of removal, Hamdi is entitled to relief. His requested relief is that the federal district court should review his mother's order of removal and, taking proper account of his constitutional rights, cancel that removal order. In its arguments below, DHS asserted that § 1252(a)(5)10 and § 1252(b)(9),11 precluded the district court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over Hamdi's claim. Although we acknowledge that the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252, even apart from § 1252(g) discussed above, are intended to narrow the availability of judicial review of removal orders and for claims arising from a final order of removal, see Kucana, 130 S.Ct. at 838-39; AADC, 525 U.S. at 482-86, 119 S.Ct. 936, we conclude that the scope of the jurisdictional bar in § 1252(b)(9) does not preclude the district court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over Hamdi's claim. However, § 1252(b)(9) does operate to preclude the district court from providing the particular relief that Hamdi seeks—judicial review of his mother's order of removal and cancellation of that order.

In Nken v. Holder, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 1755, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009), the Supreme Court explained the "changes in judicial review of immigration procedures brought on by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), 110 Stat. 3009-546, which substantially amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.,":

Id. Although § 1252(b)(9) has been described as the "unmistakable `zipper' clause," AADC, 525 U.S. at 483, 119 S.Ct. 936, its scope reaches only claims for judicial review "arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien." § 1252(b)(9). The Supreme Court has contrasted § 1252(b)(9) with § 1252(g), stating that § 1252(b)(9) is a broader jurisdictional limitation for review of the legality of final orders of removal than § 1252(g) and demonstrates "the normal manner of imposing such a [general jurisdictional] limitation" for "all claims arising from deportation proceedings." AADC, 525 U.S. at 482-83, 119 S.Ct. 936; see Muka v. Baker, 559 F.3d 480, 483-85 (6th Cir.2009) (explaining impact of § 1252(a)(5) & (b)(9) to channel judicial review of legality of removal orders). "By its terms, the provision aims to consolidate `all questions of law and fact' that `arise from' either an `action' or a `proceeding' brought in connection with the removal of an alien." Aguilar, 510 F.3d at 9.

Indeed, § 1252(b)(9) "is a judicial channeling provision, not a claim-barring one." Id. at 11. We, like the First Circuit in Aguilar, cannot endorse an interpretation of the "arising from" language in § 1252(b)(9) that "swallow[s] all claims that might somehow touch upon, or be traced to, the government's efforts to remove an alien." Id. at 10.

Id. Here, Hamdi's claim raises his distinct constitutional rights that he alleges his mother's removal order adversely affects. We can decide this issue of Hamdi's constitutional rights separately from the merits of the order of his mother's removal itself because this issue of Hamdi's rights is distinct from the question of whether his mother's order of removal is invalid based on DHS's failure to consider the effects of his potential separation from his mother. See id. at 11 ("[R]emoval proceedings are confined to determining whether a particular alien should be deported." (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(1)(A))). A judicial determination that Hamdi's constitutional rights are violated by separation from his mother is distinct from judicial determination of questions "arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien."12 § 1252(b)(9); see McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 494-96, 111 S.Ct. 888, 112 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1991) (distinguishing Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 (1984), on ground that granting general federal-question jurisdiction would not have effect of deciding the merits of claims in a proceeding separate from and prior to the prescribed judicial-review process under the relevant statute). This approach does not disregard "Congress['s] plain[] inten[tion] to put an end to the scattershot and piecemeal nature of the review process that previously had held sway in regard to removal proceedings," Aguilar, 510 F.3d at 9, and instead is consistent with precedents that have allowed challenges to proceed in the district court because the petitioner did not challenge the order of removal13 or because an available remedy would not affect the order of removal.14 See id. at 10-12 (finding support for "a bounded reading of [§ 1252(b)(9)]" in "the fact that certain claims are excluded from the sweep of section 1252(b)(9) by virtue of legislative intent [i.e., habeas review of detention] and judicial precedent [i.e., legality of detention and bail availability]").

Even though we conclude that § 1252(b)(9) does not bar Hamdi's claim from proceeding under general federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction, we must still consider the district court's ability to grant the remedy requested. A claim can be sufficient for subject-matter jurisdiction purposes "even if it is unsuccessful and possibly verging on the foolhardy in light of prior precedent barring the relief sought." Primax, 433 F.3d at 519 (internal quotation marks omitted). "`[T]he possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover'" does not defeat a district court's subject-matter jurisdiction, which remains valid so long as "`the right of the petitioners to recover under their complaint will be sustained if the Constitution and the laws of the United States are given one construction and will be defeated if they are given another.'" Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 89, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 685, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946)). But under the current interpretation of § 1252(b)(9), no federal court has the authority to review the order of removal of the mother Elgharib to determine whether a violation of the child Hamdi's constitutional rights renders the imposition of the mother's removal order invalid or whether the Immigration Court would have decided, in its discretion, not to order Elgharib's removal if it had otherwise entertained the claims now presented by Hamdi.15 Were we to agree with Hamdi and endorse a different interpretation of § 1252(b)(9) with regard to judicial review of an actual order of removal of an alien, then he would have a claim that could survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Because we cannot endorse such an interpretation under current law, see Kucana, 130 S.Ct. at 838-39; AADC, 525 U.S. at 482-86, 119 S.Ct. 936; Elgharib, 600 F.3d at 600 n. 2, 603-04; Muka, 559 F.3d at 483-85, we conclude that Hamdi has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.16 No other relief was pleaded, and we can identify no other available relief that would redress Hamdi's injury in fact without running afoul of current precedent interpreting § 1252(b)(9). Therefore, we hold that Hamdi has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the district court did not err in dismissing Hamdi's complaint.

III. CONCLUSION

We understand Hamdi's plight, and we are not insensitive to the substantial hardship that he may endure if and when his mother is finally removed from this country. However, for the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's order dismissing Hamdi's complaint with prejudice based on our conclusion that Hamdi failed to state a claim upon which a federal court may grant relief.

CONCURRENCE

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge, concurring.

Like the majority, I would affirm the dismissal of Hamdi's complaint, but my reasoning differs in some respects from that of the majority opinion. While I fully agree that the jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) is inapplicable to Hamdi's claims because they are not brought "on behalf of" his mother, I disagree with the majority opinion's analysis with respect to § 1252(a)(5) and 1252(b)(9). Taken together, these sections do indeed create a jurisdictional bar to Hamdi's claims.

Essentially, Hamdi seeks to challenge the order removing his mother from this country. Under § 1252(a)(5) and 1252(b)(9), judicial review of such an order can occur only in the context of a petition for review filed with the appropriate court of appeals. The subsections make no distinction between the individual against whom the order of removal is explicitly directed and a third party in establishing the petition for review as the sole vehicle for such a challenge. Thus, giving § 1252(b)(9) its channeling effect results in the funneling of Hamdi's challenge to the removal order into a petition for review, even though Hamdi was not a party to the immigration proceeding and could not have raised his claim of constitutional violations there.

This result stems from the characterization of Hamdi's claim as a challenge to the removal order and one involving legal issues "arising from" his mother's immigration proceeding. If Hamdi's claims were instead collateral to the removal process, then in my view they could be brought under the APA. As the majority opinion notes, we would have jurisdiction over Hamdi's constitutional and international-law based claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. And the APA provides the necessary waiver of sovereign immunity to permit the claims to proceed. Because the claims were indeed collateral, they would not be immigration proceedings in which the INA supplants the APA. Under this analytical route, we would analyze the complaint's individual claims to determine whether a claim on which relief could be granted had been stated. But because I do not think that Hamdi's claims can be categorized as collateral to the removal process, I will not undertake this analysis.

The majority opinion's view of the substance of Hamdi's claim seems close to mine, but it concludes that the problem lies in the relief sought. Proper conceptualization of this case is not an easy task, but my own view is that, based on § 1252(a)(5) and 1252(b)(9), we lack jurisdiction over Hamdi's claim.