• 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.

December Bulletin Released

Firstly, SusieQQQ and Britsimon much respect for you two for you insights and opinions. Secondly, Eyesthetics, I take no offence, I put something out there and I was simply asked how I came to a certain conclusion. The fact of the matter is, this whole DV situation is really life changing and going against Britsimon's advice of chilling out for a couple of months, I'm probably as obsessed and addicted as a lot of users on this forum. I'm not using any kind of complicated formula, but I have noticed that the numbers seem to be higher for this year than the previous 2 years . It looks like if I have to "extrapolate" the next number for AF for Feb "should" be around 25000 and if you look at the historical big jumps in May and June is probably how I came up with my ending number. All I'm doing is speculating around possibilities and probabilities. I do realize I'm not including the host of factors that could possibly effect the numbers this year. Probably in my own selfish way, I'm trying to rationalize the figure of AF 84xxx becoming a reality for me. :D

Ok, the harsh truth is probably a bit less comforting. The max case number in DV2014 for AF was 116k. That included the impact of Nigeria, which has been excluded this year. Nigeria took 6000 selectees last year but also would have contributed a large number of holes. As Nigeria is excluded this year, many of those holes are not there so the density has increased - that means 84k this year is higher than 84k last year. The exclusion on Nigeria will have made some more visas available, but I think getting to 84k would be the most optimistic view. 95k is just a dream.

If you want to understand holes, density and Nigeria, go to my blog


http://britsimonsays.com/the-lottery-draw-process-holes-theory-and-so-on/

And
http://britsimonsays.com/what-will-...g-excluded-this-year-to-af-and-other-regions/
 
And yet, and yet we have had people in the 90s get visas before last year. I understand Simon's reasoning but I would not quite give up hope.
 
And yet, and yet we have had people in the 90s get visas before last year. I understand Simon's reasoning but I would not quite give up hope.


Yep - it could happen. Stricter enforcement of rules could easily change things...

Only time will tell.
 
Do you have any reasoning to support this prediction?


Some reasoning here.
Nigeria's drop out will free up some 3000 visas which will be reallocated within the AF-EU-OC-NA group of regions according the eligible population split. So 51% of these go back to RoA but AF has a net loss of - 1450 visas. This will reduce the max case number.
Assuming a 96/4 split for CP and AoS one should observe a reduction of 1380 CP visas. Since AF has a very constant CEAC density of 0.15 on the visa level in the case number range 45.5k+ the max case number will drop by 1380/0.15=9.2k.
 
Some reasoning here.
Nigeria's drop out will free up some 3000 visas which will be reallocated within the AF-EU-OC-NA group of regions according the eligible population split. So 51% of these go back to RoA but AF has a net loss of - 1450 visas. This will reduce the max case number.
Assuming a 96/4 split for CP and AoS one should observe a reduction of 1380 CP visas. Since AF has a very constant CEAC density of 0.15 on the visa level in the case number range 45.5k+ the max case number will drop by 1380/0.15=9.2k.

Good calculations, but that does not support the OPs predictions!

Also, Nigeria being excluded should have an appreciable impact on density (as Bangladesh did) - so shouldn't that be factored in as well?
 
Good calculations, but that does not support the OPs predictions!

Also, Nigeria being excluded should have an appreciable impact on density (as Bangladesh did) - so shouldn't that be factored in as well?

Exactly! And I'm not saying the final cut-off is at 70k either. Density will change so much that 70k+ will most likely miss out and even case numbers down to 60k+ are risky.
 
Excuse me, but AS won't be getting any of Nigeria's visas?
Neither AS nor SA are getting Nigerian visas. These two regions constitute the class of high admission regions in INA 203(c) . Population considerations have no bearing on the split between the two classes of regions.
 
Exactly! And I'm not saying the final cut-off is at 70k either. Density will change so much that 70k+ will most likely miss out and even case numbers down to 60k+ are risky.

Probably not what many will want to hear, but I have been concerned about that for a while. I'm hoping numbers up to 70 will be safe, but numbers in the 80 to 99 range are most certainly at risk. Sad.
 
Neither AS nor SA are getting Nigerian visas. These two regions constitute the class of high admission regions in INA 203(c) . Population considerations have no bearing on the split between the two classes of regions.

I see, thank you.
I'm worried about my chances especially after the slow VB progress of Asia (CN in high 9k), I was hoping Nigeria would add some visas.
 
Probably not what many will want to hear, but I have been concerned about that for a while. I'm hoping numbers up to 70 will be safe, but numbers in the 80 to 99 range are most certainly at risk. Sad.

Sad indeed, but I would prefer to know the bad news about my number early and leave the nerve wrecking forum - - until May. I would come back and have a look at the visa bulletin, in the hope that the darn poster has erred.
 
Sad indeed, but I would prefer to know the bad news about my number early and leave the nerve wrecking forum - - until May. I would come back and have a look at the visa bulletin, in the hope that the darn poster has erred.

Agreed
 
Neither AS nor SA are getting Nigerian visas. These two regions constitute the class of high admission regions in INA 203(c) . Population considerations have no bearing on the split between the two classes of regions.

Hi DV4Roger,

Thanks for the calculation. I have a question about AS and SA not benefiting from the Nigeria visas. It seems the redistribution of visa is calculated on state and region rather than just region.

Under INA 203c ss (E) sss (iii), redistribution apply to High admission region and low admission state.

Let's use my case as example, I am from Hong Kong , hence AS region. So I am from a low admission state and high admission region. Am I ( and any Hong Kong selectee)not going to benefit from this redistribution?

In my understanding of the law, we will benefit, but not to the ratio as the low admission region and low admission state combination.

The law is posted below for everyone's reference:

Immigration and Nationality Act (203c)
Section 203(c)
(c) Diversity Immigrants -

(1) In general. – Except as provided in paragraph (2), aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201 (e) for diversity immigrants shall be allotted visas each fiscal year as follows:

(A) Determination of preference immigration. – The Attorney General shall determine for the most recent previous 5-fiscal-year period for which data are available, the total number of aliens who are natives of each foreign state and who

(i) were admitted or otherwise provided lawful permanent resident status (other than under this subsection) and
(ii) were subject to the numerical limitations of section 201(a) other than paragraph (3) thereof) or who were admitted or otherwise provided lawful permanent resident status as an immediate relative or other alien described in section 201(b)(2) .

(B) Identification of high-admission and low-admission regions and high-admission and low-admission states. – The Attorney General -

(i) shall identify -

(I) each region (each in this paragraph referred to as a “high- admission region”) for which the total of the numbers determined under subparagraph (A) for states in the region is greater than 1/6 of the total of all such numbers, and
(II) each other region (each in this paragraph referred to as a “low- admission region”); and

(ii) shall identify -

(I) each foreign state for which the number determined under subparagraph (A) is greater than 50,000 (each such state in this paragraph referred to as a “high-admission state”), and
(II) each other foreign state (each such state in this paragraph referred to as a “low-admission state”).

(C) Determination of percentage of worldwide immigration attributable to high-admission regions. – The Attorney General shall determine the percentage of the total of the numbers determined under subparagraph (A) that are numbers for foreign states in high-admission regions.

(D) Determination of regional populations excluding high- admission states and ratios of populations of regions within low-admission regions and high-admission regions. – The Attorney General shall determine-

(i) based on available estimates for each region, the total population of each region not including the population of any high-admission state;
(ii) for each low-admission region, the ratio of the population of the region determined under clause (i) to the total of the populations determined under such clause for all the low-admission regions; and
(iii) for each high-admission region, the ratio of the population of the region determined under clause (i) to the total of the populations determined under such clause for all the high-admission regions.

(E) Distribution of visas. -

(i) No visas for natives of high-admission states.- The percentage of visas made available under this paragraph to natives of a high- admission state is 0.
(ii) For low-admission states in low-admission regions. – Subject to clauses (iv) and (v), the percentage of visas made available under this paragraph to natives (other than natives of a high-admission state) in a low-admission region is the product of-

(I) the percentage determined under subparagraph (C), and
(II) the population ratio for that region determined under subparagraph (D)(ii).

(iii) For low-admission states in high-admission regions. – Subject to clauses (iv) and (v), the percentage of visas made available under this paragraph to natives (other than natives of a high-admission state) in a high-admission region is the product of -

(I) 100 percent minus the percentage determined under subparagraph (C), and
(II) the population ratio for that region determined under subparagraph (D)(iii).

(iv) Redistribution of unused visa numbers. – If the Secretary of State estimates that the number of immigrant visas to be issued to natives in any region for a fiscal year under this paragraph is less than the number of immigrant visas made available to such natives under this paragraph for the fiscal year, subject to clause (v), the excess visa numbers shall be made available to natives (other than natives of a high-admission state) of the other regions in proportion to the percentages otherwise specified in clauses (ii) and (iii).

(v) Limitation on visas for natives of a single foreign state. – The percentage of visas made available under this paragraph to natives of any single foreign state for any fiscal year shall not exceed 7 percent.

(F) Region defined. – Only for purposes of administering the diversity program under this subsection, Northern Ireland shall be treated as a separate foreign state, each colony or other component or dependent area of a foreign state overseas from the foreign state shall be treated as part of the foreign state, and the areas described in each of the following clauses shall be considered to be a separate region:

(i) Africa.

(ii) Asia.

(iii) Europe.

(iv) North America (other than Mexico).

(v) Oceania.

(vi) South America, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean.

(2) Requirement of education or work experience. – An alien is not eligible for a visa under this subsection unless the alien-

(A) has at least a high school education or its equivalent, or

(B) has, within 5 years of the date of application for a visa under this subsection, at least 2 years of work experience in an occupation which requires at least 2 years of training or experience.

(3) Maintenance of information. – The Secretary of State shall maintain information on the age, occupation, education level, and other relevant characteristics of immigrants issued visas under this subsection.
 
Last edited:
The important word in 203(c) is

(D) Determination of [...] ratios of populations of regions within low-admission regions and high-admission regions.

Population power factors in AFTER the 80/20 split according with past LPR flow. The 50,000 visas are therefore divided first into groups of 40,000 and 10,000. The larger number is assigned to the underperforming AF-EU-OC-NA class of regions and AS has to share the smaller number with SA (diversity intent of the program).
Nigeria's drop out changes the ratios within the low-admission regions.

Being a low-admission state qualifies for the program, high-admission states are simply excluded (like China main land, Canada, Mexico, Great Britain or Nigeria).

AS region would get additional visas if some low-admission regions ran out of qualifying selectees. Such transfers happened in earlier years (in fact very often), and is one of the reasons why the number of selectees was raised.

Hi DV4Roger,

Thanks for the calculation. I have a question about AS and SA not benefiting from the Nigeria visas. It seems the redistribution of visa is calculated on state and region rather than just region.

Under INA 203c ss (E) sss (iii), redistribution apply to High admission region and low admission state.

Let's use my case as example, I am from Hong Kong , hence AS region. So I am from a low admission state and high admission region. Am I ( and any Hong Kong selectee)not going to benefit from this redistribution?

In my understanding of the law, we will benefit, but not to the ratio as the low admission region and low admission state combination.

The law is posted below for everyone's reference:

Immigration and Nationality Act (203c)
Section 203(c)
(c) Diversity Immigrants -

(1) In general. – Except as provided in paragraph (2), aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201 (e) for diversity immigrants shall be allotted visas each fiscal year as follows:

(A) Determination of preference immigration. – The Attorney General shall determine for the most recent previous 5-fiscal-year period for which data are available, the total number of aliens who are natives of each foreign state and who

(i) were admitted or otherwise provided lawful permanent resident status (other than under this subsection) and
(ii) were subject to the numerical limitations of section 201(a) other than paragraph (3) thereof) or who were admitted or otherwise provided lawful permanent resident status as an immediate relative or other alien described in section 201(b)(2) .

(B) Identification of high-admission and low-admission regions and high-admission and low-admission states. – The Attorney General -

(i) shall identify -

(I) each region (each in this paragraph referred to as a “high- admission region”) for which the total of the numbers determined under subparagraph (A) for states in the region is greater than 1/6 of the total of all such numbers, and
(II) each other region (each in this paragraph referred to as a “low- admission region”); and

(ii) shall identify -

(I) each foreign state for which the number determined under subparagraph (A) is greater than 50,000 (each such state in this paragraph referred to as a “high-admission state”), and
(II) each other foreign state (each such state in this paragraph referred to as a “low-admission state”).

(C) Determination of percentage of worldwide immigration attributable to high-admission regions. – The Attorney General shall determine the percentage of the total of the numbers determined under subparagraph (A) that are numbers for foreign states in high-admission regions.

(D) Determination of regional populations excluding high- admission states and ratios of populations of regions within low-admission regions and high-admission regions. – The Attorney General shall determine-

(i) based on available estimates for each region, the total population of each region not including the population of any high-admission state;
(ii) for each low-admission region, the ratio of the population of the region determined under clause (i) to the total of the populations determined under such clause for all the low-admission regions; and
(iii) for each high-admission region, the ratio of the population of the region determined under clause (i) to the total of the populations determined under such clause for all the high-admission regions.

(E) Distribution of visas. -

(i) No visas for natives of high-admission states.- The percentage of visas made available under this paragraph to natives of a high- admission state is 0.
(ii) For low-admission states in low-admission regions. – Subject to clauses (iv) and (v), the percentage of visas made available under this paragraph to natives (other than natives of a high-admission state) in a low-admission region is the product of-

(I) the percentage determined under subparagraph (C), and
(II) the population ratio for that region determined under subparagraph (D)(ii).

(iii) For low-admission states in high-admission regions. – Subject to clauses (iv) and (v), the percentage of visas made available under this paragraph to natives (other than natives of a high-admission state) in a high-admission region is the product of -

(I) 100 percent minus the percentage determined under subparagraph (C), and
(II) the population ratio for that region determined under subparagraph (D)(iii).

(iv) Redistribution of unused visa numbers. – If the Secretary of State estimates that the number of immigrant visas to be issued to natives in any region for a fiscal year under this paragraph is less than the number of immigrant visas made available to such natives under this paragraph for the fiscal year, subject to clause (v), the excess visa numbers shall be made available to natives (other than natives of a high-admission state) of the other regions in proportion to the percentages otherwise specified in clauses (ii) and (iii).

(v) Limitation on visas for natives of a single foreign state. – The percentage of visas made available under this paragraph to natives of any single foreign state for any fiscal year shall not exceed 7 percent.

(F) Region defined. – Only for purposes of administering the diversity program under this subsection, Northern Ireland shall be treated as a separate foreign state, each colony or other component or dependent area of a foreign state overseas from the foreign state shall be treated as part of the foreign state, and the areas described in each of the following clauses shall be considered to be a separate region:

(i) Africa.

(ii) Asia.

(iii) Europe.

(iv) North America (other than Mexico).

(v) Oceania.

(vi) South America, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean.

(2) Requirement of education or work experience. – An alien is not eligible for a visa under this subsection unless the alien-

(A) has at least a high school education or its equivalent, or

(B) has, within 5 years of the date of application for a visa under this subsection, at least 2 years of work experience in an occupation which requires at least 2 years of training or experience.

(3) Maintenance of information. – The Secretary of State shall maintain information on the age, occupation, education level, and other relevant characteristics of immigrants issued visas under this subsection.
 
Last edited:
The important word in 203(c) is

(D) Determination of [...] ratios of populations of regions within low-admission regions and high-admission regions.

Population power factors in AFTER the 80/20 split according with past LPR flow. The 50,000 visas are therefore divided first into groups of 40,000 and 10,000. The larger number is assigned to the underperforming AF-EU-OC-NA class of regions and AS has to share the smaller number with SA (diversity intent of the program).
Nigeria's drop out changes the ratios within the low-admission regions.

Being a low-admission state qualifies for the program, high-admission states are simply excluded (like China main land, Canada, Mexico, Great Britain or Nigeria).

AS region would get additional visas if some low-admission regions ran out of qualifying selectees. Such transfers happened in earlier years (in fact very often), and is one of the reasons why the number of selectees was raised.

Let me see if I understand you correctly, since AS and SA are in a different region, the quota never mix with the low admission region.

So we should see the same visa and cut off pattern given:
1) the density doesn't change
2) the derivitive ratio ( issued visa per CN ) doesn't change
3) the response rate doesn't change

3 is the one I worry the most about since DS260 may increase the number of selectee who replied/need an interview, the cut off may be affected.

Obviously, the visa issue ratio may not be directly related to how many interviews are scheduled, but KCC needs to accomodate all the increased number of interview( from higher response of DS260 regardless of no show), thus calling a higher number to achieve the visa quota.
 
Let me see if I understand you correctly, since AS and SA are in a different region, the quota never mix with the low admission region.

So we should see the same visa and cut off pattern given:
1) the density doesn't change
2) the derivitive ratio ( issued visa per CN ) doesn't change
3) the response rate doesn't change

3 is the one I worry the most about since DS260 may increase the number of selectee who replied/need an interview, the cut off may be affected.

Obviously, the visa issue ratio may not be directly related to how many interviews are scheduled, but KCC needs to accomodate all the increased number of interview( from higher response of DS260 regardless of no show), thus calling a higher number to achieve the visa quota.

I think that if the number of no-shows increases so much they will take this into account when scheduling. Remember interviews are not specific slots as such - everyone for the day arrives at the same time.
Also someone from our home country reported being phoned by the consulate to check they were ready for the interview. I suspect this is also to figure out if there will be no-shows.
 
SusieQQQ might give you an indication of the true costs of getting the plastic, compared to the $100 she spent for the UPS delivery of the paperwork.

So yes, I expect an increased response rate, but at the same time an increased number of no-shows and on the visas issued level an minuscule increase of density, if any. For cut-off calcs I just use the values in CEAC 9/30 and implement an sensitivity factor.

Let me see if I understand you correctly, since AS and SA are in a different region, the quota never mix with the low admission region.

So we should see the same visa and cut off pattern given:
1) the density doesn't change
2) the derivitive ratio ( issued visa per CN ) doesn't change
3) the response rate doesn't change

3 is the one I worry the most about since DS260 may increase the number of selectee who replied/need an interview, the cut off may be affected.

Obviously, the visa issue ratio may not be directly related to how many interviews are scheduled, but KCC needs to accomodate all the increased number of interview( from higher response of DS260 regardless of no show), thus calling a higher number to achieve the visa quota.
 
Last edited:
I think that if the number of no-shows increases so much they will take this into account when scheduling. Remember interviews are not specific slots as such - everyone for the day arrives at the same time.
Also someone from our home country reported being phoned by the consulate to check they were ready for the interview. I suspect this is also to figure out if there will be no-shows.

Right, everyone got the 2nl for that day will be asked to show up at 9am for example.
The only thing would be there must have some sort of physical/ security limit of max people inside the building, but I don't think that will be caused by DV selectees.

Mind if I ask which consulate call people to check readiness of interview?
 
Top