This PhD analyses how rape myths - incorrect beliefs about rape (survivors/victims/perpetrators) - permeate asylum decision making, using Belgium as a case study. In order to do so, it translated ‘rape myths’ in the criminal justice context to ‘SGBV myths’ in the asylum context, identified six relevant SGBV myths, and analysed their acceptance/rebuttal levels in Belgian asylum decisions, as well as how the procedural and institutional frameworks impact these. The research’s method triangulation consisted of: a (case) law and literature analysis, interviews with asylum applicants and officials, and a survey with asylum officials. It concluded that 76% of the analysed decisions (n=202) relied on at least one of the SGBV myths, with acceptance occurring across all types of SGBV, all regions of origin, and all procedural stages and languages, regardless of applicants' age or gender identity. SGBV myth acceptance in the asylum context is an alarmingly pervasive phenomenon, calling for change in decision making practice. To this end, the research formulates tailored conclusions and substantive and procedural recommendations.