• Hello Members, This forums is for DV lottery visas only. For other immigration related questions, please go to our forums home page, find the related forum and post it there.

January VB numbers released!!!

kayend said:
Technically, if you are not from Nepal you wouldn't join Nepal fb group. So I would believe it is a genuine case # from Nepal.

Any Iranian from this forum that can shed some light on Iran max case #? Remember, even if your country is under special cut off category it doesn't mean you will be losing out. In fact, it will benefits all Asian.
Click to expand...

I trust you that is a genuine case. However:
1. She could be born in Nepal, but could have played and won from another country (via spouse or parent).
2. She could live in Nepal but be born in another country
3. Some Uzbekistani natives I know have number above regular Uzbekistani limit. Maybe 1%-3% of them. I got some information from two of those, and figured out they live outside of Uzbekistan (in Russia) and mentioned that on their initial entry.

So, the fact that she is in Nepalese fb group is OK with her high number. But it would be interesting to know if her case fits into one of those 3 patterns, or if it something different. Regarding the rules of the group, it seems to me all 3 categories fit into the group
 
Last edited by a moderator:
raevsky said:
I trust you that is a genuine case. However:
1. She could be born in Nepal, but could have played and won from another country (via spouse or parent).
2. She could live in Nepal but be born in another country
3. Some Uzbekistani natives I know have number above regular Uzbekistani limit. Maybe 1%-3% of them. I got some information from two of those, and figured out they live outside of Uzbekistan (in Russia) and mentioned that on their initial entry.

So, the fact that she is in Nepalese fb group is OK with her high number. But it would be interesting to know if her case fits into one of those 3 patterns, or if it something different. Regarding the rules of the group, it seems to me all 3 categories fit into the group
Click to expand...

If every countries under special cut off category should hand low case #, then the only explanation is that when a country reached to 6k to.6.1k the selections will stop getting from that country. Or certain countries already.classify as special country even before the selections start, so they will try to pick certain percentage from the special country pool and certain percentage from the regional pool. If not, I don't. see why special countries must be having low case #.

If the latter is true then then Iran or Nepal will definitely have a special cut off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rayme said:
ok this a data of sample taken between 99 cases in Nepal
96**
3800
87**
11xxx
3800
3300
127***
12$$$
38**
91xx
4##
3600
48xx
12***
8000
11***
11***
12...
47##
7832
98**
122**
10###
83##
12***
13***
65**
13###
13###
75**
11###
98**
84**
70**
1718
70**
11***
97**
13###
11###
124**
9#
102**
21**
12***
13***
5***
19**
13***
13###
21**
32**
13***
8***
6***
61**
70**
8***
9***
15***
45**
127xx
52**
71**
13***
1319*
8***
8***
97**
125**
15xxx
12***
87xx
90**
12***
5***
39##
91xx
121xx
126##
2xxx.
12***
3***
10###
102**
13***
10***
11***
52**
11***
51**
12***
122**
60XX
29**
9***
13###
3***
13***
Click to expand...
BTW, I do not see her case here.
 
Rrevsky:
Isn't the case numer ssupposed to be distributed randomly for each region? If not how do they operate on that?
 
kayend said:
If every countries under special cut off category should hand low case #, then the only explanation is that when a country reached to 6k to.6.1k the selections will stop getting from that country. Or certain countries already.classify as special country even before the selections start, so they will try to pick certain percentage from the special country pool and certain percentage from the regional pool. If not, I don't. see why special countries must be having low case #.

If the latter is true then then Iran or Nepal will definitely have a special cut off.
Click to expand...

I am trying to figure out if she:
1. Is really chargeable to Nepal right now, according to what her case says. Even if she lives in Nepal or/and was born there or/and is a citizen of Nepal, her country of chargeability could be different
2. As I said, even if she is chageable to Nepal, her case number could be beyond the Nepalese limits. That is a rare case, I do not have enough statistics to figure out why, but I know some cases where this happened with people who live outside of their country of chargeability and mentioned that on the initial entry. She could have a similar thing, or another reason that we might be able yet to find out.
 
vladek15425 said:
Rrevsky:
Isn't the case numer ssupposed to be distributed randomly for each region? If not how do they operate on that?
Click to expand...

In DV-13 frequency CDF function had a break at the point of additional selection. That means it was not an equally distributed function even for non-special countries. But non-special countries were evenly distributed from 1 to the max on initial selection and again evenly distributed from max on initial selection to max on additional selction.

For special countries it was different. They were evenly distributed from 1 to some limit (like 14682 for Ukraine, while EU max was 30532), and again evenly from that number (14682) to regional max (like EU 30532). But the number of Ukrainian numbers 14682 to 30532 was very low, about 1%-3% of ukrainian numbers total.

In DV-14 there is no need for additional selection, so I assume non-special countries would be evenly distributed. I also assume special countries would be evenly distributed about the same was as in DV-13. Like if Nepal is a special country in DV-14, vast majority of nepalese numbers would be evenly distributed between 1 and ~15000. At the same time some small amount of nepalese numbers (1% to 3% of total number of nepalese winners) would be evenly distributed between ~15000 (regular nepalese max, break in cdf function for Nepal) and ~27000 asian max.
She could be one of those.
 
dolopar said:
Does anyone has any information about Iran's highest case number reported so far?
Click to expand...

kayend said:
Any Iranian from this forum that can shed some light on Iran max case #? Remember, even if your country is under special cut off category it doesn't mean you will be losing out. In fact, it will benefits all Asian.
Click to expand...

Here's what a forum member had to say:

QiQ said:
Hi I'm iranian ,most iranian cn is under 8000 but we have some cn after 10000 .
My friends cn is 22000 .
Click to expand...

QiQ said:
Yes but this example is very very low .
My cn is 8000 and most friends cn between 100 to 8000 .
Click to expand...
 
Rayme said:
Ravesky she is from chitwan nepal actually chitwan is town in nepal I know her she is my friend she is a nurse
Click to expand...
Sathi, tyo FB page ko nam k ho? Can i also Join? I am also DV winner with case number around 12k. I am also from Chitwan but residing abroad now..
 
Rayme said:
ok this a data of sample taken between 99 cases in Nepal
...
Click to expand...

Here's the plot. :)

_1000 ●●
_2000 ●●●
_3000 ●●●●●●●●●
_4000 ●●●
_5000 ●●●●●
_6000 ●●●●
_7000 ●●●●●●
_8000 ●●●●●●●●●
_9000 ●●●●●●●●●●
10000 ●●●●●
11000 ●●●●●●●●
12000 ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
13000 ●●●●●●●●●●●●●
14000
15000 ●●
16000
17000
18000
19000
20000
21000
22000
23000
24000
25000 ●
26000
27000
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The one that shows as 25000 is actually what was labelled as 2xxxx. I had to assume something for x and I picked the mid-range to the next significant digit.
 
raevsky said:
In DV-13 frequency CDF function had a break at the point of additional selection. That means it was not an equally distributed function even for non-special countries. But non-special countries were evenly distributed from 1 to the max on initial selection and again evenly distributed from max on initial selection to max on additional selction.

For special countries it was different. They were evenly distributed from 1 to some limit (like 14682 for Ukraine, while EU max was 30532), and again evenly from that number (14682) to regional max (like EU 30532). But the number of Ukrainian numbers 14682 to 30532 was very low, about 1%-3% of ukrainian numbers total.

In DV-14 there is no need for additional selection, so I assume non-special countries would be evenly distributed. I also assume special countries would be evenly distributed about the same was as in DV-13. Like if Nepal is a special country in DV-14, vast majority of nepalese numbers would be evenly distributed between 1 and ~15000. At the same time some small amount of nepalese numbers (1% to 3% of total number of nepalese winners) would be evenly distributed between ~15000 (regular nepalese max, break in cdf function for Nepal) and ~27000 asian max.
She could be one of those.
Click to expand...

See the plot that I posted.
 
raevsky said:
In DV-13 frequency CDF function had a break at the point of additional selection. That means it was not an equally distributed function even for non-special countries. But non-special countries were evenly distributed from 1 to the max on initial selection and again evenly distributed from max on initial selection to max on additional selction.

For special countries it was different. They were evenly distributed from 1 to some limit (like 14682 for Ukraine, while EU max was 30532), and again evenly from that number (14682) to regional max (like EU 30532). But the number of Ukrainian numbers 14682 to 30532 was very low, about 1%-3% of ukrainian numbers total.

In DV-14 there is no need for additional selection, so I assume non-special countries would be evenly distributed. I also assume special countries would be evenly distributed about the same was as in DV-13. Like if Nepal is a special country in DV-14, vast majority of nepalese numbers would be evenly distributed between 1 and ~15000. At the same time some small amount of nepalese numbers (1% to 3% of total number of nepalese winners) would be evenly distributed between ~15000 (regular nepalese max, break in cdf function for Nepal) and ~27000 asian max.
She could be one of those.
Click to expand...

Well, if that the case, Nepal and Iran will go special cut off very soon and they will have their own queue, so it might be 1/2 for Nepal and 1/3 for Iran progress compare to other Asian countries. So, if that is the same I don't think 15k case # as the hard limit make any sense. It will push it to 18k and higher because from the selection USCIS already put special countries into a different range then it should have the progress differently. I am just trying to make some sense out from what I have collected so far.
 
c1984 said:
See the plot that I posted.
Click to expand...

I made a plot from those 99 numbers differently:

90 1
400 1
1718 1
1900 1
2000 1
2100 2
2900 1
3000 2
3200 1
3300 1
3600 1
3800 3
3900 1
4500 1
4700 1
4800 1
5000 2
5100 1
5200 2
6000 2
6100 1
6500 1
7000 3
7100 1
7500 1
7832 1
8000 5
8300 1
8400 1
8700 2
9000 3
9100 2
9600 1
9700 2
9800 2
10000 3
10200 2
11000 8
12000 9
12100 1
12200 2
12400 1
12500 1
12600 1
12700 2
13000 12
13190 1
15000 2


99 total

That is not a uniform distrubution. But if we assume that 12 instances of 13000 is just the same winner listed by 12 people (that is an important high number, that is why 12 people listed that as the number of someone they know, or just of one person), and if iwe leave the following plot:

90 1
400 1
1718 1
1900 1
2000 1
2100 1
2900 1
3000 1
3200 1
3300 1
3600 1
3800 1
3900 1
4500 1
4700 1
4800 1
5000 1
5100 1
5200 1
6000 1
6100 1
6500 1
7000 1
7100 1
7500 1
7832 1
8000 1
8300 1
8400 1
8700 1
9000 1
9100 1
9600 1
9700 1
9800 1
10000 1
10200 1
11000 1
12000 1
12100 1
12200 1
12400 1
12500 1
12600 1
12700 1
13000 1
13190 1
15000 1

51 total

We see that that is an evenly distributed random variable (between 1 and 15000).

At the same time just one instance of 25000 fits into randomly distributed random variable between 15000 and 27000, with amount of values 1% to 3% of total (total is 52)
That is what I was trying to say before.
 
raevsky said:
I made a plot from those 99 numbers differently:

90 1
400 1
1718 1
1900 1
2000 1
2100 2
2900 1
3000 2
3200 1
3300 1
3600 1
3800 3
3900 1
4500 1
4700 1
4800 1
5000 2
5100 1
5200 2
6000 2
6100 1
6500 1
7000 3
7100 1
7500 1
7832 1
8000 5
8300 1
8400 1
8700 2
9000 3
9100 2
9600 1
9700 2
9800 2
10000 3
10200 2
11000 8
12000 9
12100 1
12200 2
12400 1
12500 1
12600 1
12700 2
13000 12
13190 1
15000 2


99 total

That is not a uniform distrubution. But if we assume that 12 instances of 13000 is just the same winner listed by 12 people (that is an important high number, that is why 12 people listed that as the number of someone they know, or just of one person), and if iwe leave the following plot:

90 1
400 1
1718 1
1900 1
2000 1
2100 1
2900 1
3000 1
3200 1
3300 1
3600 1
3800 1
3900 1
4500 1
4700 1
4800 1
5000 1
5100 1
5200 1
6000 1
6100 1
6500 1
7000 1
7100 1
7500 1
7832 1
8000 1
8300 1
8400 1
8700 1
9000 1
9100 1
9600 1
9700 1
9800 1
10000 1
10200 1
11000 1
12000 1
12100 1
12200 1
12400 1
12500 1
12600 1
12700 1
13000 1
13190 1
15000 1

51 total

We see that that is an evenly distributed random variable (between 1 and 15000).

At the same time just one instance of 25000 fits into randomly distributed random variable between 15000 and 27000, with amount of values 1% to 3% of total (total is 52)
That is what I was trying to say before.
Click to expand...

I have not knowledge about the ways USCIS handles special countries. Hence what you mentioned it make complete sense to me but I wanted to point out is that if country like Nepal distribute more than 95% of the their selectees into 1st half of the selectees case # range then it should put under special cut off as soon as possible, if not it will slow down the entire Asia progress and it is not good for anyone.

I still don't really know why they need to do that. Why need to use CDF function for special countries. Even they worry too many AP cases that need time to process, it still need to process 3000 to 6000 cases and that still spreads over a year time.

Imagine from 0 to 15,000 and assuming only 3000 left for other Asian countries which hold almost 50% of the selectees and it uses CDF function for special countries and no special cut off as soon as possible, that is not really a fair system.

Anyway, next month cut off is really interesting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry dude. I had higher expectations of you. I was hoping that a person that's familiar with the German Tank Problem would argue more reasonably.

raevsky said:
I made a plot from those 99 numbers differently:

...

99 total

That is not a uniform distrubution. But if we assume that 12 instances of 13000 is just the same winner listed by 12 people (that is an important high number, that is why 12 people listed that as the number of someone they know, or just of one person), and if iwe leave the following plot:

...

51 total

We see that that is an evenly distributed random variable (between 1 and 15000).

At the same time just one instance of 25000 fits into randomly distributed random variable between 15000 and 27000, with amount of values 1% to 3% of total (total is 52)
That is what I was trying to say before.
Click to expand...

Wow. If we were to make up assumptions as we go, we could support any type of argument. That's not a scientific approach.

Dude, what kind of summarization is that? Lo and behold. You are haphazardly removing data as duplicate? If we were to do that what would become of the Probabilities theory?

Who says if you see 8xxx and then again 8xxx they are duplicate and should be counted as one? Maybe one was 8136 and the other 8776. (you are actually counting 5 of them as one)

My friend, your credibility is at real jeopardy here all of a sudden. I really hope that you revisit your approach. You are very knowledgeable in DV cases and I really like to count on your arguments as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top