Facing discrimination and abuse in Iran, many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) individuals flee their home country and arrive in Turkey. There, they join millions of displaced refugees waiting for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to resettle them to a third country willing to accept them. Due to their vulnerability, until recently LGBTI refugees constituted an exceptionally advantaged group: UNHCR and third countries such as the United States and Canada expedited the assessment of LGBTI asylum applications and reserved prioritized resettlement quotas for victims of sexual and gender-based violence. Thus, LGBTI asylum applications used to be so-called ‘golden cases,’ accorded expedited consideration for resettlement in the United States and Canada. This picture, however, has drastically changed with the recent asylum policies of the third countries. Since late 2015, Canada has begun to implement new resettlement quotas for Syrian refugees, and simultaneously, the resettlement of LGBTI refugees has slowed down, if not completely stopped. On the other hand, US President Donald Trump’s executive orders have left Iranian LGBTI refugees in limbo, suspending indefinitely their resettlement plans. Drawing on ethnographic research in Turkey and interviews with Iranian LGBTI refugees, asylum lawyers, and national and diasporic NGOs, this paper examines how the recent asylum policies of the US and Canada have affected Iranian LGBTI refugees’ individual and communal experiences. As the prospect for resettlement has been severely undermined by the discriminatory asylum policies of the US and Canada, refugees are overwhelmed by unsafety of their present and uncertainty of their future. Yet, they have also responded to hardening asylum policies of the US and Canada in various ways, through political and communal organizing; humor and sarcasm; alternative resettlement paths such as human smugglers, private sponsorship, and converting to Christianity; a growing demand for sex-policing to distinguish ‘fake cases’ from ‘authentic’ LGBTIs; and an increasing resentment toward Syrian refugees for being the ‘new golden cases.’ By offering a contextualized analysis of an at once privileged and discriminated group, I examine how legal and humanitarian practices of asylum are mapped onto hierarchies of gender, sexuality, race, and class, which, in turn, delineate ‘at risk’ and ‘risky’ refugee groups, and legitimate and illegitimate mobilities.