Adekpe v. Gonzales - In this asylum case, the Seventh Circuit found that the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding was unreasoned.

Banks v. Gonzales - The court found that the immigration judge had ignored the testimony of the expert witness, and went on to suggest a wholesale revision of the way that the courts adjudicate asylum cases, suggesting the creation of a network of experts to help the immigration courts.

Das v. Gonzales - The court found that the immigration judge who denied the client’s asylum case on the basis that the client should be able to relocate within India failed to make a finding as to whether relocation would be “reasonable” under the circumstances.

Durgac v. Gonzales - The court found that the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence.

Gebreeyesus v. Gonzales - In this asylum case based on changed country conditions, NIJC argued that the BIA should have considered the possibility of future persecution, as well as the evidence of a pattern of activity in Ethiopia.

Grupee v. Gonzales - The court held the immigration judge’s reasoning to be speculative and unfair.

Hor v. Gonzales - The court found the immigration judge’s decision to be irrational.

Kebe v. Gonzales - The court found that the BIA should have responded to significant material evidence that the asylum seeker had submitted regarding changed country conditions.

Mekhael v. Mukasey - The Seventh Circuit delivered another stinging rebuke to the immigration courts and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) when it ordered the review of a case of a Lebanese asylum seeker and called for the Department of Justice to allocate more resources to ensure that immigrants receive fair review of their cases.

Mohideen v. Gonzales - The Seventh Circuit overturned this decision for lack of a reasoned analysis.

Oyekunle v. Gonzales - The court found that the immigration judge who denied the asylum seeker's case relied too heavily on country reports from the U.S. State Department.

Tchemkou v. Gonzales - The court found that separate incidents of oppression should be considered in the aggregate when determining whether the client’s claims meet the definition of past persecution, found that the client suffered a reasonable fear of future persecution, and found that the fact that the client’s family members remained in her home country was not relevant to her fear of persecution.

Tekelu v. Gonzales - The court agreed with the immigration judge and found that ethnic-based denaturalization constituted “past persecution.” The court’s decision overturned the BIA’s asylum denial.