Editorial Policy

This policy governs immigration guides, company profiles, comparisons and explanatory content published by relocation.ng. Its purpose is to make the work accurate, useful and transparent without hiding uncertainty or commercial relationships.

Independence and commercial separation

Editorial conclusions, company scores and route explanations are determined by evidence and the published methodology. Advertising, sponsorship, affiliate payments or a provider’s participation cannot purchase a favourable conclusion.

Commercial content must be labelled so a reasonable reader can recognise it before acting. The real ownership, funding and material relationships should be disclosed on the About page. Editors may reject an assignment or add independent review when a conflict cannot be managed adequately.

Source hierarchy and attribution

For immigration rules, we prioritise legislation, government departments, immigration authorities, embassies, consulates and official European institutions. For company identity and professional claims, we prefer the relevant public register, contractual document and first-party statement.

Secondary sources can provide context but do not replace the authority responsible for the rule. Volatile figures such as fees, salary thresholds, processing times and exchange rates should be dated and linked to the live source. Every substantive article should show official sources where they exist.

Quotations and third-party material must be attributed and used within copyright and editorial standards. We do not copy another publisher’s structure or present its reporting as our own verification.

Authors, reviewers and conflicts

Substantive work has a real byline linked to a biography. Expert review is recorded only when a named, suitably competent person has checked the actual material. Profiles must describe credentials accurately and avoid implying legal authorisation that the contributor does not possess.

Authors and reviewers disclose financial, employment, referral, family or other interests relevant to an article or provider. The editor decides whether disclosure, additional review or reassignment is necessary. See the authors and reviewers standard.

Responsible claims and language

We do not call a route guaranteed, risk-free or universally easy. Immigration outcomes depend on current law, evidence and individual facts. We distinguish an official rule from editorial interpretation, a company statement, a reader report and an unresolved allegation.

Headlines and metadata should describe the page accurately rather than use fear, false urgency or a promised result. Content should explain uncertainty in plain language and avoid dehumanising descriptions of migrants or applicants.

We do not publish unnecessary passport, financial, health or family data. Personal information is included only when relevant, proportionate and lawfully handled.

Company and reader review standards

Company profiles use the published review methodology. A legal registration is not presented as a professional licence, and an evidence gap is not automatically described as fraud.

Reader reviews may be moderated for relevance, privacy, conflicts, abuse and manipulation. Evidence can be checked without publishing the document or claiming that the editor has adjudicated the underlying dispute. Editorial and reader scores remain separate.

A company may answer a factual question or exercise a reasonable right of reply. It does not receive advance control over the editorial conclusion.

Updates, corrections and removal

Material changes to law, procedure or company evidence trigger review according to priority and reader impact. The update date represents a substantive check, not a cosmetic change. The fact-checking policy explains the recorded verification process.

Credible correction requests are assessed against the strongest available evidence. Material factual changes receive a transparent note where appropriate. We may remove content that is unlawful, dangerously inaccurate, needlessly invasive or no longer serves a legitimate editorial purpose, but accurate public-interest information is not removed merely because it is unfavourable.