Credibility assessment is often cited as the most challenging aspect of asylum evaluations, as the applicant’s oral testimony is generally the only evidence available to establish their claim. These difficulties are exacerbated when the applicant requests international protection based on their religion, an identity characteristic that is poorly understood by asylum officials. Notably, a mismatch in the way religion is understood by the applicant and the official may lead the latter to reject individuals with an imminent risk of harm upon return to their home countries. In this presentation, I will highlight the main challenges linked to credibility assessments of asylum claims based on religion, focusing on officials’ methods of eliciting claims of religion and their evaluations of particularly complex religion-based claims. I make the argument that officials’ practices deviate from established knowledge in psychology and the scientific study of religion, and propose certain recommendations to improve the accuracy and fairness of religion-based asylum credibility assessments.