It would indeed be really interesting to understand how the court was able to rationalize that; INA is pretty explicit. In any case, I doubt typical "illegal immigration" can be meaningfully described as "fleeing persecution", and I say that with an abundance of sympathy for those garden variety illegal immigrants.

They didn't rationalize that because that's not what those cases were about. See my other reply to OP.

This is completely wrong. The court determined no such thing in either one of those cases. Both of these are cases in which the Ninth Circuit disagreed with findings made by the Board of Immigration Appeals in denying asylum relief and reversed said decisions. Insofar as passports/documents are referenced, it is in relation to testimonial credibility. Those decisions do not endorse or in any way legalize the use of false documents or the commission of illegal entry.

(Also, ninth circuit court holdings are only applicable in the ninth circuit.)