AILC is an annual case law reporter that provides the full text of U.S. court opinions involving international law issues. The courts covered include all U.S. federal district courts, federal appellate courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as some state courts, the U.S. Court of Claims, the U.S. Court of International Trade, and the U.S. Tax Court. The series seeks to provide not every single case in which a court refers to international law but rather all cases that analyze at least one international law issue in depth. The list of subjects addressed by these volumes is vast and changes from year to year, with the inclusion and prominence of most topics turning on their prevalence in a given year's jurisprudence. Some consistently prominent topics are personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants, deportation procedure, and double taxation. Over the last three editions (2006, 2007, and 2008), many topics have developed rapidly and constitute a correspondingly larger portion of the volumes, particularly Terrorism, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Forum Non Conveniens, and an entirely new, added topic: the National Security Exception (to deportation eligibility). The 2008 edition of AILC also features expanded sections on family law and on the detention of terrorist suspects. The U.S. war on terror and the crisis at Guantanamo have made that last topic a significant and dynamic component of AILC. Each edition of AILC also comes framed with two practical resources for students and scholars. The first is an introductory editor's note that both reviews international law's major developments for the given year and explains to readers how to use the volumes. The second is a subject index to allow for targeted research. Volume Seven of AILC includes cases on multilateral conventions such as the Montreal Protocol and the Convention Against Torture. The volume also concerns the status and rights of aliens, involving asylum and deportation procedures and due process rights. In Rashad v. Mukasey, the petitioner submitted a petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Immigration Judge (IJ) rejected the petition since it was filed past the one year statutory period. The circuit court affirmed the IJ's decision and found that the evidence and testimony offered by the petitioner was insufficient to compel a reasonable fact finder to conclude that more likely than not he would be tortured or persecuted if he were to return to Pakistan. In Arar v. Ashcroft, Arar alleged a violation of the Torture Victim Protection Act and his Fifth Amendment substantive due process rights arising form the conditions of his detention in the United States, the denial of his access to counsel and to the courts while in the United States, and his detention and torture in Syria. The court examined whether Arar's extraordinary rendition claim could be examined under a new context.