Movingto uses a staged editorial workflow for immigration and relocation content. Official sources take priority for sensitive claims, and named reviewer attribution appears only when the exact page records a reviewer, a review date and a completed review status. Legacy articles can be at different stages. This page describes the controls we apply without implying that every page has completed legal review.
Who Creates Our Content
These people contribute to Movingto's company, legal and editorial work. A team role does not mean that person reviewed every article:
- Dean FankhauserCEO & Co-Founder
Oversees company and editorial direction. Article bylines and review credits remain specific to the exact page and recorded work.
- Inês Cabral AlmeidaSenior Immigration Lawyer (Portugal)
Licensed Portuguese advogada. Legal review is attributed only on an exact page with a recorded reviewer, review date and "legalReview" status.
- David Simões FitasSenior Immigration Lawyer (Portugal)
Independent immigration lawyer with extensive experience in Portuguese residency law, family reunification, and citizenship applications.
- Paulo MouraImmigration Lawyer (Portugal)
Independent immigration lawyer supporting D7 Visa applications, Digital Nomad Visas, and comprehensive residency advisory.
- Radica ManevaContent Lead
Immigration content specialist covering Spain, Italy, and Greece. Manages editorial calendar and content quality standards.
Our Editorial Process
Our target workflow uses six controls. A legacy page may not have completed every control, so its recorded sources, review state and public attribution are treated as the evidence.
- Research and primary sources: For legal, tax, eligibility, fee, timing and investment claims, writers start with the relevant government authority, regulator or legislation. Secondary sources may help with discovery, but they do not by themselves close a high-risk factual check.
- Drafting and editing: Named authors and editors are accountable for the page they work on. A byline does not by itself prove professional licensure, legal approval or direct experience with every route. Operational observations are used only when the underlying evidence can be reproduced and scoped to the claim.
- Source, specialist or legal review: A page may receive source verification, subject-matter review or jurisdiction-specific legal review. Movingto displays a named reviewer only when that exact page version records the reviewer, the review date and a completed "verified" or "legalReview" status. We describe the page as legally reviewed only when its recorded status is "legalReview".
- Editorial review: We check whether the scope, caveats and next steps are understandable to a first-time reader. Editing for clarity must not remove a legal qualification, turn an estimate into a guarantee or make a source say more than it does.
- Publication and attribution: Article pages show the recorded author and update date. A reviewer panel and reviewer schema are withheld unless the page has at least one reviewer, a review date and a completed review status. Incomplete reviewer data never becomes a hidden public claim.
- Monitoring and updates: We prioritize confirmed changes by potential user harm, legal or financial sensitivity, traffic and evidence quality. We do not publish a fixed review or update deadline unless it is measured and consistently met. The public update date reflects the recorded page update, not a promise of legal review.
Our Sources
Source choice depends on the claim. For sensitive or time-dependent claims, the preferred evidence falls into these categories:
- Government immigration authorities: for example, AIMA in Portugal and the relevant national ministry or migration authority in the country covered
- Regulators: for example, CMVM for Portuguese fund registration and Banco de Portugal for regulated financial matters within their remit
- Legislation and official gazettes: including Diário da República, BOE, Gazzetta Ufficiale and official EU legal databases
- Professional input: used when the person's role, jurisdiction and contribution to the exact page are documented; it does not replace primary legal sources
- Operational evidence: used only with a reproducible record, a defined cohort and a date. Internal experience is not published as a universal timing, outcome or eligibility guarantee.
What Our Review Labels Mean
"Verified" means the page has passed the recorded source or fact-verification step. It does not by itself mean a lawyer reviewed the page. A page is described as legally reviewed only when the exact article version records a reviewer, review date and "legalReview" status.
"Verification pending" and "needs source review" are incomplete states. They are not displayed as completed public review. If reviewer information is missing or contradictory, the page shows only its author and update date.
Client outcomes are not used as a substitute for article-level evidence. Movingto does not publish a universal approval rate or zero-rejection claim without a current, defined and independently checked cohort approved for that exact use.
Corrections and Feedback
If you find a possible error, contact support@movingto.com. We investigate the reported claim against the relevant evidence and correct confirmed errors. We do not promise a fixed response time unless that service level is measured and published.
Material corrections should preserve the evidence trail and update the page's recorded modification date. For the current correction process or questions about methodology, see the Corrections Policy or contact support@movingto.com.
AI and Content Disclosure
AI tools may assist research, data formatting, translation or drafting. A human remains responsible for the publication decision and for checking claims against the required evidence. AI assistance is not legal review, and Movingto does not attribute a named reviewer unless the exact page records completed review proof.