Trust and methodology

The database is built from three kinds of record, kept separate on purpose. Government decisions are Administrative Appeals Office rulings that show how USCIS applied the NIW framework to a specific petition. Law firm case studies are matters that immigration firms have chosen to publish. Community experiences are self-reported accounts from people who have been through the process; they are useful for context but are not independently verified. The Research Hub brings these sources together alongside case statistics and current immigration updates.

Our case comparisons focus on the I-140 NIW petition. Petition approval is separate from permanent residence, obtained through I-485 adjustment of status or consular processing. Read our I-140 and I-485 guide for the distinction and official sources.

Our NIW petition statistics measure I-140 outcomes and processing times. They do not measure I-485 outcomes or total time to a green card. Visa Bulletin cutoffs describe visa availability and are kept separate from those datasets.

Matching works on the parts of a profile that actually separate one NIW case from another: professional background, the proposed endeavor, education and experience, research impact, practical impact, and supporting evidence. It is not a keyword search over case text. Because the comparison is structured, adding detail to your profile changes which cases surface, and you can refine it over time to find closer matches.

Each result carries its source type and, where one exists, a link to the original record. Nothing is presented as an answer without the case behind it.

Government Interest records come only from primary U.S. government sources. PetitionMatcher surfaces strategies, initiatives, programs, frameworks, and priority documents that may provide public context for a field or proposed endeavor. Each record includes an evidence locator, a review date, and a currentness label. Historical sources remain available when useful and are labeled archived, superseded, or unclear rather than presented as current.

General government interest in a topic does not prove that a specific proposed endeavor has national importance. A public strategy or program page is also different from applicant-specific government support, such as a letter addressing one person’s work. The Government Interest collection provides sources for readers to inspect, not a national importance score or a legal conclusion.

When PetitionMatcher discusses USCIS policy, it distinguishes four different things: date-derived chronology (a decision came before or after a policy event), source-stated applicability (the issuing source says how it applies, for example to pending or newly filed matters), explicit authority citation (a decision actually cites the provision), and unknown policy context (the record does not establish any of the above). Chronology alone is never presented as proof of applicability or citation. See the NIW policy timeline for how this applies to specific USCIS guidance.

A source’s publication date and its stated effective date can differ, and PetitionMatcher records them separately rather than assuming one from the other. A law firm article’s publication date is not necessarily the underlying petition’s filing or decision date. When a procedural date is not stated by a source, it remains recorded as unknown rather than filled in. Living sources, such as the USCIS Policy Manual, are reviewed against a specific verification date rather than treated as permanently current, and a material update to PetitionMatcher’s own policy pages is reflected in that page’s review history.

PetitionMatcher attributes claims to where they come from. “The decision explained…” or “USCIS states…” means the point is supported directly by the primary source. “The firm reports…” means the claim comes from a publisher’s own description of a case, not from the underlying record itself. Any PetitionMatcher editorial inference is labeled as such rather than presented as a quotation, and missing information is recorded as missing rather than treated as negative evidence. Errors are corrected when found, research pages carry a verification date, and a community-submitted narrative is published only with the contributor’s explicit consent after a public-use and privacy review.

PetitionMatcher does not estimate a probability of approval, score your petition, or predict what USCIS will decide. It is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. Comparable cases are a starting point for research and for a conversation with a qualified attorney, not a substitute for one. Our guide explains how to compare public NIW cases.

Coverage is uneven across fields and is expanding. If there are few or no comparable cases in your area today, that reflects the current record set, not a judgment about your profile, and results improve as the database grows.

Questions about sources or methodology can be sent to support@petitionmatcher.com.