In this article, I argue that the US Citizenship and Immigration Services’ current guidelines for LGBTQ+ asylum adjudication are both underinclusive and improperly restrictive. They are underinclusive because they are insufficiently attentive to LGBTQ+ applicants’ right to protection from persecution on the basis of gender expression. They also flatten the concept of gender identity by conflating it with transgender identity, thus reconsolidating a transgender/cisgender binary that impedes asylum officers’ ability to find cognizable those gender identities that exceed these two terms. The guidelines are also improperly restrictive because they forbid specific discussions of sex acts during the asylum interview. To be sure, this proscription is a response to widespread recent reports of abuse of applicants around the world. Nevertheless, it overcorrects for the problem and, in turn, hinders asylum officers’ ability to elicit detailed testimonies as well as impedes, in all likelihood, the ability of some applicants to furnish credible testimonials.