The subject matter addresses the problem of verifying the authenticity of religious conversions when international protection is sought on the grounds of religious persecution. A fundamental dilemma is inherent in this procedure: the credibility of the (new) conviction must be established without jeopardising the state's ideological neutrality or violating the individual freedom of religion and belief of the protection-seekers. Concurrently, religious communities possess a legally protected interest in independently determining the criteria for membership. The central focus is the examination of the constitutional, fundamental rights, and epistemological limits of the state's review of religious identity, with the Austrian asylum procedure serving as a case study. The core content comprises a critical evaluation of administrative and judicial practice in Austria, identifying three central areas of tension: The Credibility Standard: The judicial requirement that the new faith must have "become part of the applicant's identity" frequently results in practice in inadmissible knowledge tests and a scrutiny of the inner person. The Neutrality Paradox: The official questioning regarding inner religious conviction cannot be conducted coherently without resorting to religious criteria. The Humanitarian Priority: The objective risk of asylum-relevant persecution in the country of origin must take precedence within the asylum procedure - irrespective of the credibility assessment of a conversion. A potential solution, within the framework of a cooperative constitutional law of religion, could lie in strengthening the evidential value of expert testimony provided by religious office-holders. The aim is to outline a path compliant with the rule of law and fundamental rights to mitigate the system-inherent dilemma of religious scrutiny.