Explore a comparison, download the evidence, and give your readers the source.
A good immigration story needs a number you can explain, a comparison that holds up, and a source your editor can check. Whether you are reporting on families waiting for green cards or people waiting for work authorization, the research should support the story without becoming the whole assignment.
That is the purpose of Immiva’s research hub: a place to examine USCIS statistics and take the underlying material into your reporting, with no account required. Start with the published findings, or bring your own question to the explorer.
What you can use in the USCIS data hub
The hub covers I-130, I-485, I-751, I-765, and N-400, with category and period comparisons, CSV downloads, SVG chart exports, a data dictionary, source inventory, and revision notes. The current publication covers October 1, 2024, through June 30, 2026, and was published and reviewed September 21, 2026. See the research hub and publication resources.
Choose the output that fits the assignment:
| Your reporting task | Start here |
|---|---|
| Check a possible trend | Compare periods in the explorer |
| Recalculate a figure | Download the CSV |
| Prepare a graphic | Export an SVG chart |
| Understand a field | Consult the data dictionary |
| Trace a number | Read the source inventory and revision notes |
Use the chart for a first look and the records for a closer check. Before pitching a headline, write down the form, category, measure, and period behind it. Those details give an editor something specific to review.
Keep the reporting question narrow enough to answer. “What changed for this filing category between these two quarters?” is a stronger starting point than “What is happening to immigration?”
Bring a question, leave with a reporting lead
A comparison is useful when it tells you what to investigate next. Four starting questions for a newsroom or research desk:
- Is the agency completing cases as quickly as new filings arrive? Compare incoming work with completed work before deciding which interviews or documents would explain the difference.
- Does an overall figure hide a different category-level picture? Break down the relevant form before making a claim about everyone who uses it.
- Do two measures support the same interpretation? Look at pending inventory alongside processing time, then ask what each one measures.
- What needs an explanation beyond the chart? Use the comparison to prepare questions for applicants, attorneys, researchers, or the agency.
For examples of related coverage, explore our backlog analysis, denial-rate analysis, and processing-time analysis.
Treat these as starting questions. A change in a series can justify further reporting without explaining why it happened, so build the explanation from evidence that fits the claim.
Take a comparison from question to publication
Begin with one question rather than a finished headline, and keep a record of the choices behind your answer.
- Choose the population. Identify the form and category relevant to your assignment. Save those labels in your notes so the story does not drift into a broader claim.
- Choose comparable periods. Record both dates and the reporting scope. Ask whether your comparison describes activity over a period or a count at a particular date.
- Inspect the values. Open the table and download the selected records from the data explorer. Recalculate any percentage you plan to feature.
- Prepare the presentation. Use the exported chart or build your own graphic from the records. Keep the measure, unit, category, and period visible in the caption.
- Save the evidence. Keep the download, access date, source reference, and any calculations with your reporting notes. Check revision notes again before publication.
For a quick pitch, a short evidence note can be enough: the question, the selected series, the comparison, and the next person you need to interview. For a finished piece, keep enough detail for another reporter to reproduce the calculation.
The aim is a shorter path from spotting a possible story to testing it. A good chart tells you what deserves more reporting and makes the eventual explanation easier for readers to follow.
Credit the work and give readers a source
Reuse is part of the offer. Immiva’s derived dataset and charts are available under CC BY 4.0. Credit the analysis, link to the hub, identify changes, and credit USCIS for the raw observations. The publication resources include citation text and reuse terms.
For an adapted chart, a concise credit could read:
Fill in your publication's name before using it. Add the specific form, category, measure, and data period in your caption or accompanying text.
Put the source link with the chart or the claim it supports, where someone checking the number will find it. A link back to the research also gives readers a route to the methods and downloadable material.
If your desk redraws the graphic, keep the original observations, the analysis, and your presentation distinct, so readers can see who is responsible for each part.
Check the measure before writing the headline
Precise language depends on knowing what each measure counts. The methods section distinguishes receipts, completions, pending cases, processing times, and decisions. Read the definition for the measure you choose before interpreting a change.
Do: name the period and population in the claim. Keep the denominator beside a percentage. Describe an observed difference before proposing an explanation.
Avoid: presenting a comparison as evidence of cause, extending a category result to every applicant, or making the headline stronger than the analysis supports.
For additional context on terminology, see our net-backlog explainer. Use a separate source and reporting process for any policy explanation you add.
Before filing, ask a colleague to read the headline and caption without the article. Can they identify what was measured, who it describes, and when? If those answers are unclear, revise the wording before adding more detail.
Start your next story with the evidence
Open the USCIS data hub, choose one question, and test a comparison. Take the records into your own analysis, use a chart with clear attribution, and give readers a link they can follow.
That is the invitation to journalists, researchers, and editors covering immigration: use the material, examine the methods, and build reporting people can check.