To what extent can asylum seekers live their sexual, political, religious identity ‘freely and openly’? Must they contribute to their own protection in their countries of origin through ‘discreet’ behaviour? If not, what does it mean that refugee law provides ‘surrogate’ protection for very serious situations only? Although it has repeatedly been rejected by high-level judgments, the idea that a claim for international protection can be rejected on the basis that the claimant behave ‘discreetly’ in their country of origin has remained resilient in asylum claims based on sexual orientation, but also other grounds of claim. An exploration of the resilience of this doctrinal figure seemingly incompatible with the basic tenets of refugee law will lead onto a journey through the complex underbelly of refugee law doctrine and confront some of the fundamental questions about the scope of refugee protection.