After years leading cross-border investment processes — moving capital, businesses and people between jurisdictions — the same blocker kept showing up on every deal: the visa question. Programmes that looked open on paper were closed in practice. whereTOemigrate is the system I wished we'd had on those deals.
Outside whereTOemigrate, Antonio holds governance roles in three bilateral trade bodies spanning the cross-border corridors this platform maps: Executive Board Member of the Portuguese–Saudi Business Council, Secretary of the General Assembly of the Portugal–Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce & Industry (PHKCCI, 2026–2028 term), and a board member of the Arab–Portuguese Chamber of Commerce & Industry (CCIAP). All roles are public and verifiable on LinkedIn.
After years leading cross-border investment processes for clients moving capital, businesses and themselves between jurisdictions, the same blocker kept showing up on every deal: the visa question. Programmes that looked open on paper were closed in practice; income floors moved between drafts; a single mis-stated threshold could cost a quarter of negotiation.
Antonio leads product and methodology — the visa-matching scoring engine, the 7,000+-programme database against gazetted government sources, and the framework that ranks countries on the Eligible / Almost verdict. Antonio builds and maintains the database, the engine and the customer infrastructure behind it himself.
The platform is engineered to produce a decision, not a list of options. Most emigration sites inform; few decide. We chose the harder problem.
"Sophisticated clients were committing real money to a path that, with thirty minutes of structured data, was visibly wrong from the start. We built the system we wished we'd had."
Every threshold, fee and processing time in the database links to a named source URL — most of those direct to a government domain. Where the data is incomplete, the report says so. Where the scoring engine is unvalidated against real outcomes, the methodology page says so. The limits are on the box.
Not values on a wall. The contract we sign with every reader who pays €10 for a verdict.
The verdict commits: Eligible, Almost eligible, or Not eligible. No five-star gradients to dodge the call. If a profile is borderline, we score it and tell you why — not what you want to hear.
3 verdicts · 0 hedgesEach fee, income floor and processing time links to a named source URL it was lifted from — most of those directly to a government portal. If a programme can't show one, it doesn't enter the database — not as a "draft," not as a "forthcoming." It doesn't ship.
Every route has a named source URL · most direct to governmentIf a country gazettes a fee bump, a new income floor or a programme suspension mid-quarter, we log it as soon as it's flagged — a reader report or our own quarterly sweep — verify it against the source, and patch the database with the source URL and capture date at /changelog. Confirmed corrections ship within 14 days, at no cost to affected reports.
No country, agency, law firm or programme operator ranks higher because they sent us a wire. We do not sell positions in the verdict. The day we do is the day the report stops being worth €10.
0 affiliate kickbacksTwo known gaps — the scoring engine isn't yet validated against real outcome data, and cost-of-living tools cost-of-living is fair-use research pending commercial licence — are stated, in plain English, on the methodology page. Before you pay.
2 gaps · publicly disclosedFind a material inaccuracy verifiable against the source we cite, and the report is corrected and reissued at €0. The contributor is credited by name in the changelog (or anonymously, if preferred). A guarantee, not a marketing line.
€0 to customer · alwaysOne source-of-truth chain. No "team consensus" hand-waving in the middle.
A programme only enters the database with a named, fetchable URL on a .gov or equivalent official domain. Embassy summaries don't count. Consultant blog posts don't count.
Income floors, fee structures, processing windows, dependant rules. Currency is normalised to EUR at the gazetted rate. No scraping; the source is human-read because the wording matters.
14 user inputs × the programme's eligibility schema → a single score from 0–100 and a Eligible / Almost verdict. The five scoring dimensions and every hard gate that can eliminate a programme are documented on the methodology page — the internal weighting isn't published, so the formula can't be copied wholesale.
Versioned in the changelog with the source URL and date of capture. Re-verified on the next quarterly sweep, or as soon as a mid-cycle policy change is flagged to us.
Two routes — for contributors and for press. Both go to humans, not a bot.
Found a programme we've missed, a fee we've mis-stated, or an income threshold we've mis-converted? Send the receipt and we'll fix it. Most updates ship within 24 hours.
Logged at /changelog. Contributor credited by name (or anonymously, if preferred).
Canonical attribution: "whereTOemigrate · wheretoemigrate.io/data-sources"
For interview requests, fact-checks, or licensing inquiries — the press kit lives at /press with quotable stats and brand assets.
/press/data-sources/methodologyTwo things this is not — said plainly, up front, before you pay for anything.
We don't submit applications or represent applicants. Reports are research artefacts, not legal advice. Engage qualified counsel before financial commitment.
Cost-of-living, tax, and salary figures are for orientation. Personal financial decisions warrant a CFP or tax adviser licensed in the relevant jurisdiction.
The standards aren't a marketing piece. They're what the verdict you're about to get is built on.
Get Your Free VerdictNo payment · No signup · 14 questions · 3 min