Which mistake is worse: to deny a refugee claim that should have been granted, or to grant a claim that should have been denied? The first part of this chapter argues that denying a genuine claim is the wrong mistake under international refugee law. Two core elements of the refugee protection doctrine – the non-refoulement principle, and the declaratory nature of refugee status determination – combine to create an apparent problem within the law. This problem can only, and can neatly, be solved by recognizing that states have a duty to structure refugee status decision-making to err in the claimant’s favour. The second part, drawing on UK and Australian jurisprudence, proposes a new approach to refugee status decision-making that reflects this legal imperative to resolve doubt in the claimant’s favour. It argues that a model of legal reasoning built on abductive rather than inductive inference would best equip refugee status decision-makers to fulfil their risk assessment obligations under the Convention.