Removal proceedings are the federal government's mechanism for expelling a noncitizen from the United States, and they run on their own statute, their own courts, and their own logic. This guide walks the entire case, beginning with the Notice to Appear and what Pereira and Niz-Chavez did to defective NTAs, then turning to the architecture of EOIR and why immigration judges are executive-branch employees rather than Article III judges, to detention and bond and the mandatory-detention grounds, and to pleading at the master calendar hearing. It explains the structural difference between grounds of inadmissibility under INA § 212(a) and grounds of deportability under INA § 237(a), and why which side of that line a client falls on decides who bears the burden of proof. It then works through the criminal grounds — aggravated felonies, crimes involving moral turpitude, and controlled-substance offenses — and the categorical approach of Taylor, Descamps, and Mathis that governs them, including the Pereida trap that turns an ambiguous record of conviction against the applicant for relief. Every form of relief follows: cancellation of removal for LPRs and non-LPRs, asylum, withholding of removal, CAT protection, adjustment of status with the § 212(h) and § 212(i) waivers, voluntary departure, and prosecutorial discretion. It closes with the individual hearing and credibility under the REAL ID Act, in absentia orders and motions to reopen, appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and petitions for review in the courts of appeals, where the jurisdictional bars of INA § 242 swallow much of what looks reviewable. Because immigration enforcement policy, detention practice, and Attorney General precedent shift rapidly, verify current EOIR and DHS guidance before relying on any policy-dependent point.