• 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.

2014 DV Australian winners

SusieQQQ said:
10% per country per month. I've seen this mentioned a few times but don't believe I've seen an official reference to it.
Click to expand...
Maybe someone can point this out to me, I don't know of it. I know that a single country can't have more than seven percent of the total number of visas (that's written in each bulletin).

More stats:
  • In DV-2013, 27% of OC selectees didn't see their number until September. (I understand that's a region, not a country though).
  • Just looking at OC, for the last 12 years the average percent of selectees that went CURRENT per CURRENT month is 18%.
Those figures, while regional, don't seem compatible with the country limit you mention. Would like to learn about it if it exists.
 
typo said:
Maybe someone can point this out to me, I don't know of it. I know that a single country can't have more than seven percent of the total number of visas (that's written in each bulletin).

More stats:
  • In DV-2013, 27% of OC selectees didn't see their number until September. (I understand that's a region, not a country though).
  • Just looking at OC, for the last 12 years the average percent of selectees that went CURRENT per CURRENT month is 18%.
Those figures, while regional, don't seem compatible with the country limit you mention. Would like to learn about it if it exists.
Click to expand...

As I said I have seen it talked about but never seen an official reference to it. Then again there is a lot of stuff that is not made public about how the allocation of numbers etc works. So I just don't know.

Can you clarify your statements - do you mean more than 10% were issued visas in Sept 2013? I am not exactly sure what you mean when you say "% that didn't see their number till Sept" or "% that went current per month" as you would have to know what the number of valid returned forms was to say that - not just the number of selectees. It is the valid returned forms that determines how many visas they can issue. ( If you are going on % of selectees you are essentially saying they can, for example, issue 140k visas in total this year.)
 
Last edited:
typo said:
Maybe someone can point this out to me, I don't know of it. I know that a single country can't have more than seven percent of the total number of visas (that's written in each bulletin).

More stats:
  • In DV-2013, 27% of OC selectees didn't see their number until September. (I understand that's a region, not a country though).
  • Just looking at OC, for the last 12 years the average percent of selectees that went CURRENT per CURRENT month is 18%.
Those figures, while regional, don't seem compatible with the country limit you mention. Would like to learn about it if it exists.
Click to expand...


How did you get those two stats? I am sceptical about the theory and sceptical about these two stats. So maybe if you can explain how you got the stats I could understand why you seem to be convinced about your theory.
 
SusieQQQ said:
As I said I have seen it talked about but never seen an official reference to it. Then again there is a lot of stuff that is not made public about how the allocation of numbers etc works. So I just don't know.

Can you clarify your statements - do you mean more than 10% were issued visas in Sept 2013? I am not exactly sure what you mean when you say "% that didn't see their number till Sept" or "% that went current per month" as you would have to know what the number of valid returned forms was to say that - not just the number of selectees. It is the valid returned forms that determines how many visas they can issue. ( If you are going on % of selectees you are essentially saying they can, for example, issue 140k visas in total this year.)
Click to expand...
No, I'm just using the somewhat accepted assumption that selectee numbers for each region are proportional to the visa quota for the region. So if 27% of OC selectees went current in September then that would mean 27% of OC visas would be issued that month. I could very well be wrong about that stuff, I don't want to look into the detail too much, was just having a rough go at tackling your question about a potential monthly limit.
Britsimon said:
How did you get those two stats? I am sceptical about the theory and sceptical about these two stats. So maybe if you can explain how you got the stats I could understand why you seem to be convinced about your theory.
Click to expand...
I've manually gone through the last few visa bulletins of each year, they are from here:
http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/law-and-policy/bulletin.html

and manually gone through the statistical summaries from here:
http://travel.state.gov/content/vis...y-visa/diversity-visa-program-statistics.html

I'm curious, what makes you skeptical britsimon?
 
typo said:
No, I'm just using the somewhat accepted assumption that selectee numbers for each region are proportional to the visa quota for the region. So if 27% of OC selectees went current in September then that would mean 27% of OC visas would be issued that month. I could very well be wrong about that stuff, I don't want to look into the detail too much, was just having a rough go at tackling your question about a potential monthly limit.

I've manually gone through the last few visa bulletins of each year, they are from here:
http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/law-and-policy/bulletin.html

and manually gone through the statistical summaries from here:
http://travel.state.gov/content/vis...y-visa/diversity-visa-program-statistics.html

I'm curious, what makes you skeptical britsimon?
Click to expand...

How do you calculate your percentages? How do you know exactly the number of cases per month and the number of returned forms? You're basing an argument on what you claim is "accepted", but you don't know that at all. You would have to know at the very least the number of visas granted cumulatively though the fiscal year as well as the number of actual cases in the final months. If the return rate is particularly low for example then you will be way overstating the amount in the final month.
 
typo said:
No, I'm just using the somewhat accepted assumption that selectee numbers for each region are proportional to the visa quota for the region. So if 27% of OC selectees went current in September then that would mean 27% of OC visas would be issued that month. I could very well be wrong about that stuff, I don't want to look into the detail too much, was just having a rough go at tackling your question about a potential monthly limit.

I've manually gone through the last few visa bulletins of each year, they are from here:
http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/law-and-policy/bulletin.html

and manually gone through the statistical summaries from here:
http://travel.state.gov/content/vis...y-visa/diversity-visa-program-statistics.html

I'm curious, what makes you skeptical britsimon?
Click to expand...


What makes me sceptical (I am British - we don't get skeptical)? OK:-

I don't believe the 27% number for a start and although I have read a lot of DV related stuff I cannot for the life of me figure out how you might get such a statistic. Lots of people come up with alternative ways of looking at the same data, but I normally do understand the basis for the data.

Next, there is lots of evidence that shows numbers progress normally throughout the year (as they have this year). During the months when regions go current, that is NOT normally when the bulk of the work is done, it is normally the stragglers by that point. For example, to take DV2013. THe highest number that we know of that went through the CEAC system for that year was 1638. Only 10 cases are shown with numbers above the August cutoff of 1600. A total of 24 people. So that is 10 cases out of 500 - so that suggests 98% of the cases for OC were current by August. Doesn't seem like they held anything back.

Source of that - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...VWWnJoV1BZSTF0R0JGeVRSTFE&usp=drive_web#gid=4

So this year looks like last year with the exception that we have a lot of people still to be processed. Your answer to that is essentially that they are saving the best for last and getting the bigger regions sorted out first, but if you look at every other region you will see that there are LOTS of people still to be processed there also. THere are simply too many selectees this year, and unless you believe in miracles and incompetent management being the best way forward, there is no way they would leave such a massive workload to be done in the one remaining month instead of spreading the workload over 12 months.

Sorry Typo - my heart is ready to believe in just about anything, but my head won't let it.
 
britsimon = Susie's intuitive argument but with actual work/numbers to back it up :p

I think his(?) main mistake is basing on number of selectees which as we know can be very very different from number processed. It is also unclear to me if he is taking account of the holes in the case numbers.
 
SusieQQQ said:
How do you calculate your percentages? How do you know exactly the number of cases per month and the number of returned forms? You're basing an argument on what you claim is "accepted", but you don't know that at all. You would have to know at the very least the number of visas granted cumulatively though the fiscal year as well as the number of actual cases in the final months. If the return rate is particularly low for example then you will be way overstating the amount in the final month.
Click to expand...
This is the mechanics side I really try to avoid because I am aware of all the unknowns you speak of, holes in case numbers included. My statement is just a really simple one about selectees. The percent is this: (number of selectees that year - number that showed up in August visa bulletin)/number of selectees that year. The strength of what that implies about visas is questionable.
Britsimon said:
What makes me sceptical (I am British - we don't get skeptical)? OK:-

I don't believe the 27% number for a start and although I have read a lot of DV related stuff I cannot for the life of me figure out how you might get such a statistic. Lots of people come up with alternative ways of looking at the same data, but I normally do understand the basis for the data.

Next, there is lots of evidence that shows numbers progress normally throughout the year (as they have this year). During the months when regions go current, that is NOT normally when the bulk of the work is done, it is normally the stragglers by that point. For example, to take DV2013. THe highest number that we know of that went through the CEAC system for that year was 1638. Only 10 cases are shown with numbers above the August cutoff of 1600. A total of 24 people. So that is 10 cases out of 500 - so that suggests 98% of the cases for OC were current by August. Doesn't seem like they held anything back.

Source of that - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...VWWnJoV1BZSTF0R0JGeVRSTFE&usp=drive_web#gid=4

So this year looks like last year with the exception that we have a lot of people still to be processed. Your answer to that is essentially that they are saving the best for last and getting the bigger regions sorted out first, but if you look at every other region you will see that there are LOTS of people still to be processed there also. THere are simply too many selectees this year, and unless you believe in miracles and incompetent management being the best way forward, there is no way they would leave such a massive workload to be done in the one remaining month instead of spreading the workload over 12 months.

Sorry Typo - my heart is ready to believe in just about anything, but my head won't let it.
Click to expand...
It is exactly the fact that the smaller regions will probably not go current that changes the strategy KCC must use. The problem is blurred an additional level due to the proportion of selectees in these smaller regions rising by so much this year compared to previous years. If it helps you, visualise (or draw) a hexagon that has a capacity of 50000 (or a seven sided shape with a capacity of 55000 if you want to model NACARA), each side has an entrance to get into the hexagon allocated to one region only, then try to stagger the incoming flow in 12 stages (months) so that the hexagon ends up full and has a predefined distribution. In a unique year like this one (when the smaller regions won't entirely fit inside), and when the combined size of the smaller regions is still less than 1/12 the capacity of the hexagon, to get perfect distribution it makes sense to only allow the smaller regions in when it is the last 1/12 of the allowed time period.

We don't really need to worry, the bulletin is out in not too long! :) Good night
 
typo said:
This is the mechanics side I really try to avoid because I am aware of all the unknowns you speak of, holes in case numbers included. My statement is just a really simple one about selectees. The percent is this: (number of selectees that year - number that showed up in August visa bulletin)/number of selectees that year. The strength of what that implies about visas is questionable.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, but the "mechanics" you are trying to avoid are critical to the calculation and therefore your conclusions!
Britsimon has given you a link to a spreadsheet that has the actual numbers so no need to try guess on unknowns anyway.
 
SusieQQQ said:
Look, I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, but the "mechanics" you are trying to avoid are critical to the calculation and therefore your conclusions!
Britsimon has given you a link to a spreadsheet that has the actual numbers so no need to try guess on unknowns anyway.
Click to expand...
They're not critical to the conclusions about filling strategy, which is the only point I wanted to make yesterday. The filling strategy problem is a high level one, away from the mechanics, it's high level enough that people can already intuitively 'feel' that the numbers for the small regions are "slow".

I really just want to say that, if you've got a high case number, reading into bulletin numbers for OC, South America and North America won't give you any information in a year like this one.
 
Hi everybody,

I do believe that all case numbers will go current in September, because the United States of America is a trusted country in this world. What they say or promise, they always follow.

Remember that the United States is not a communist country.
 
hro said:
Hi everybody,

I do believe that all case numbers will go current in September, because the United States of America is a trusted country in this world. What they say or promise, they always follow.

Remember that the United States is not a communist country.
Click to expand...

I assume you're kidding.
 
hro said:
Hi IheartNY,

I am serious the sentence above.

Just me, All Aussie Case Numbers will go current in September.

I believe in America 's words.
Click to expand...

Did you believe them when they said "Selection does not guarantee that you will receive a visa because the number of applicants selected is greater than the number of visas available."
 
hro said:
Hi IheartNY,

I am serious the sentence above.

Just me, All Aussie Case Numbers will go current in September.

I believe in America 's words.
Click to expand...

Show me where "America" promised that OC would go current. It doesn't promise that any selectee will go current. Sorry Hro. I hope that OC will go current but its unlikely.
 
hro said:
I do believe that all case numbers will go current in September, because the United States of America is a trusted country in this world. What they say or promise, they always follow.
Click to expand...

Hro - where has anyone said or promised that any region would go current? A region goes current for 1 reason only - that there are sufficient visas left to issue to every remaining selectee that may want to proceed.

Let's take OC as an example...

Let's say that 2500 people were selected for further processing (yes, I know it's a bit higher but let's just use 2500 for now). And let's say that the KCC has allocated 1000 visa for the whole OC region (again, I know it's probably less than that).

So far, there's been around 420 visa issued and 90 visas refused (up to June 2014). Let's up that to say 500 issued and 100 refused up to July.
  • 2500 selectees minus 100 refused = 2400 selectees left
  • 1000 visas minus 500 = 500 visas left.
  • Shortfall 1900 visas.
Now, I'm not sure if KCC will deduct the "abondoned" applications (early CN numbers still sitting in Ready status, because the selectee has not proceeded with their interview) or not, but given the above, I sadly don't think OC will go current.

Of course, KCC is more than welcome to prove me wrong. :D
 
hro said:
Hi everybody,

I do believe that all case numbers will go current in September, because the United States of America is a trusted country in this world. What they say or promise, they always follow.

Remember that the United States is not a communist country.
Click to expand...

Hmm??? :eek::eek::eek: And when did the US ever promised you an IV? If one is to go by your claim of they will deliver of what they've promised, how come people have to go through the interview process? Why didn't just give out the visas to all the people that got selected?

I am beyond shocked to say the least!
 
hro said:
Hi IheartNY,

I am serious the sentence above.

Just me, All Aussie Case Numbers will go current in September.

I believe in America 's words.
Click to expand...

Well Hro, with a pro-american attitude like that, if anyone deserves to become an American it's you :)

America only promises to issue around 50K of visas. You can trust that. They don't promise everyone selected for further processing will get one.

Are you an OC? It doesn't say in your signature. Which country are you from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top