@Britsimon
I see you have some doubts about africa. Maybe density higher than usual?
I see you have some doubts about africa. Maybe density higher than usual?
I've been looking at Xarthisius' great graphs, as well as at the scrapped raw data, and noticed something a bit strange about Asia, as these seems to be a significant spike in the "ready" cases, especially compared to other areas, in which it is much less felt. Looking at the raw data, it seems like much of the ready cases are concentrated in embassies affected by the ban - Abu Dhabi, Asian numbers in Yerevan, Djibouti and Ankara, and the like. I wonder whether this may be the result of people from banned countries arriving at the embassy but being dissuaded from attending their appointments, or arriving at the embassy and being told not to pay the fees, somehow putting their case on hold?
I'm not sure that what you're seeing is real. Keep in mind that scale is different between regions: AF and EU are binned by 1000, AS is binned by 200. This makes all the "features" look wider on the latter.I've been looking at Xarthisius' great graphs, as well as at the scrapped raw data, and noticed something a bit strange about Asia, as these seems to be a significant spike in the "ready" cases
The only sad and outstanding thing about AS so far is the refusal level. Mid-January we reached number of people that were denied visa in AS, that's close to the final number for FY17. I'm afraid that it's only going to grow...
That I cannot answer with certainty, but I don't have any other suggestions...Travel ban the main reason?
I'm not sure that what you're seeing is real. Keep in mind that scale is different between regions: AF and EU are binned by 1000, AS is binned by 200. This makes all the "features" look wider on the latter.
Most cases are concentrated in Abu Dhabi, Yerevan and Ankara, because over 35% of all people selected in AS region are from Iran and Yemen, which don't have their own embassies. UAE, Turkey and Armenia are the closest neighbor countries where those people can be interviewed. If you look at Kathmandu, it has almost the same number of ready cases as ANK, YRV and ABD combined...
All this is obviously just speculation, but people have been saying that when selectees from banned countries arrive at the embassy, they are told that they shouldn't take the interview since they will be paying the fees in vain. I wonder if this results in a refusal, or if the embassies refrain from registering it as such.
.
You're forgetting about the fact that it's January. As per November'17 VB the limit for Iran is 2800. If you look at that range for e.g. ABD (number of cases):In Abu Dhabi, for instance, the ready cases outweigh the issued cases 4:1, while in Kathmandu, the ratio is 1:1.5 in favor of issued cases.
You're forgetting about the fact that it's January. As per November'17 VB the limit for Iran is 2800. If you look at that range for e.g. ABD (number of cases):
Issued: 59
Refused: 82
AP: 46
Ready: 69
There's a high chance that some of those 69 Ready cases (in range AS1-AS2800) belong to Iran and Yemen, but I'd hardly call it "hedging". All I can see is unprecedented number of refusals...
It's true that there's a high number of 'Ready' cases above AS2800. Even if they're Iranians they couldn't have been processed yet...
I posted numbers from Abu Dhabi that are relevant above, please look at them.In Abu Dhabi, its 112 issued, 298 AP, 437 ready and 106 refused.
They do NOT.For whatever reason, the "banned" cases produce far far more "ready" cases.
It only means that there hasn't been an interview yet.what exactly "ready" could mean
Honestly, I'm not looking for an argument, but I'm not getting why you're not willing to accept that the numbers are very much different in these embassies. Even the case of Djibouti alone says that there is something strange about their use of the ready category, with NO visas issued to the people from Yemen (which is obviously the case), and 129 ready cases - and this includes plenty of numbers that have been ready for months . It is so markedly different from all other cases that it can be accidental.I posted numbers from Abu Dhabi that are relevant above, please look at them.
To push my argument even further: in range AS1-2100 for ABD there are only 26 Ready cases (out of 69 for <AS2800). We still have half of Jan to go, to process those 43 Ready cases in 2100-2800 range (assuming they're from Iran)...
They do NOT.
It only means that there hasn't been an interview yet.
I'm not looking for an argument either, but I don't like a situation when someone is presenting data and drawing conclusions that are simply impossible to draw.Honestly, I'm not looking for an argument, but I'm not getting why you're not willing to accept that the numbers are very much different in these embassies.
Good, let's focus on Djibouti as an example. First of all, there's no way to draw a conclusion from CEAC data about nationality of people assigned to a given embassy, because it's simply not there. It's a plausible assumption, I give you that, that majority of them may be from Yemen. Now, I don't know how you came up with 129 cases that are Ready (and all the other numbers you quote for that matter). There are exactly 69 cases and that's a fact that anyone can verify with the publicly available data. 26 of those 69 cases became ready on 24th December, when 2NL for February were sent. 20 of those 26 are actually above cutoff for January. These perfectly normal cases waiting for February interview. That leaves us with 43 mystery Ready cases. Now 20 of the remaining 43 are above December cutoff. These are cases that are being processed THIS MONTH. At this point we are left with 23 cases that are in Ready state for some reason. Does your ratios still look suspicious at this point?Even the case of Djibouti alone says that there is something strange about their use of the ready category, with NO visas issued to the people from Yemen (which is obviously the case), and 129 ready cases - and this includes plenty of numbers that have been ready for months . It is so markedly different from all other cases that it can be accidental.
Maybe that's the problem. You operate under assumption that your ratios are somehow more meaningful. In reality they're just numbers taken out of context.I'm not comparing absolute numbers, since I don't see the sense in that. I'm comparing the ratio of ready and issued cases, and this ratio is more than four times higher when it comes to the embassies I noted. I'm not referring to the ranges, I'm referring to the actual numbers that appear in your raw files.
Honestly, I don't even know how are you calculating those case numbers (69 vs 129??). I leave the burden of verifying our counts to the other readers.Where is my math wrong here?
What you're trying to prove is that something extraordinary is happening in AS region. Saying that embassies are magically shielding people and thatThe fact that we still have half of January to go is true for all other embassies as well. Why would it effect the ratios?
The question is what does it mean that they were not interviewed, and whether, as SusieQQQ suggested, it could come to mean something different for the embassies in question, given their unique situation.
Where did you hear that? Certainly, there's nothing about that in CEAC data.people have been saying that when selectees from banned countries arrive at the embassy, they are told that they shouldn't take the interview since they will be paying the fees in vain.
Oh! I think I know how you got that 129 number: you're summing the numbers in the "Ready" column, not the number of cases. As a result your ratios are really comparing the average size of family between different embassies.
Okay, I give up. I'm moving to Canada instead. Au revoirTo be honest, I'm a bit sad that I can't get through to you. It's my failure as an educator and as a person that strives to provide informational data analysis and visualization in both personal and professional life. I sincerely hope that I don't do equally crappy job in projects that I'm paid for. To make matter worse, the next data release in a few days will most likely have a huge bump in "Ready" cases, which will only fuel your confirmation bias.
I don't have any further, reasonable arguments to change your mind. I was hoping that DJI example would be sufficient. I can only suggest that we revisit this conversation on 09/30/2018, when everything will be clear.