• 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.

DV 2015 Oceania winners

Britsimon said:
******Caution*****
This is just a prediction - I can't be certain of these numbers....


Hmmmm - I have taken a flyer at the final number prediction. OC is easier than the big three regions so I think we have the information to get a pretty good guess.

I'm taking DV4Rogers quota (at 52.5k globally) which is 834 for OC.
Using the splits in selectees to guess the distribution of the selectees we can divide that quota among the countries (applying the local issued rate for the three big consulates from the 2014 league table). That looks like the numbers below. I did that per country and then applied the same process to the region using the average success rate.

This isn't a perfect way to do this - but it gets us close.

View attachment 339

So - that seems to suggest 1440 would be the max case number. This does not factor in the DS260 fiasco and all sorts of other things which might increase the number a bit, but I think this is in the ballpark.

Again - I don't suggest someone above this number just gives up, because a lot can happen between now and October...
Click to expand...

Hi Simon, your analysis is interesting and I've been spending some time examining as your final number is <10 from my CN

Some questions:
  • In general, I don't feel there could be more selectees required in DV2015 yet a lower CN cutoff than DV2014, the cutoff should be higher. Must be a mistake somewhere
  • The response rate for OC < 50%+ however your calculation assumes 100% follwup by winners
  • It also assumes 1 family member per CN, when it is more like 1.8%?
  • Where'd you get 3,499 selectees from?
  • Between CN0001 and CN1500 the holes rate is 10%, how does that affect your calculations? (FYI CN1401-CN1500 is 20% holes)
Thanks for your help.
 
guestgulkan said:
As you all immigrate you'll gradually drift away the until it's just us high CN people dusting the cobwebs in the empty echoing halls of the thread.

But in May I'll be able to hang with all the excited DV-2016 newbies and act like a seasoned veteran dispensing my DV-2015 wisdom.
Click to expand...

Did you see that DV4Roger told me I was too premature in worrying you OC'ers? I know your case is in the ballpark and maybe we will see a 15XX cutoff....
 
guestgulkan said:
Hi Simon, your analysis is interesting and I've been spending some time examining as your final number is <10 from my CN

Some questions:
  • In general, I don't feel there could be more selectees required in DV2015 yet a lower CN cutoff than DV2014, the cutoff should be higher. Must be a mistake somewhere
  • The response rate for OC < 50%+ however your calculation assumes 100% follwup by winners
  • It also assumes 1 family member per CN, when it is more like 1.8%?
  • Where'd you get 3,499 selectees from?
  • Between CN0001 and CN1500 the holes rate is 10%, how does that affect your calculations? (FYI CN1401-CN1500 is 20% holes)
Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...

Haha you and I were typing at the same time.....

I am working on a more detailed model the other one was a quick method so don't worry about it too much - but let me answer a couple of questions. To your points:-

The spreadsheet I gave before works on the selectees (3499 which is the official number including family), the issued rate (based on 2014) and the quota (as calculated by DV4Roger). Basically it is saying if we divide up the 834 by selectee split - where would they go. It isn't a great method, so what I am doing now is including previous entrant info to confirm the expected cases. I'll have that in a few hours (work allowing).
The holes rate is based on the whole set, on the assumption we have the whole set. However, in calculating the global "expected" case numbers (based on 2015 global derivative rate), it looks like we may be missing about 5% of cases in the data. We could assume that all those cases (if correct) are at the top end (i.e. the data is complete up to 2306 but USCIS stopped the load before the end for some reason). Anyway - I'll come back on that later....
 
guestgulkan said:
Hi Simon, your analysis is interesting and I've been spending some time examining as your final number is <10 from my CN

Some questions:
  • In general, I don't feel there could be more selectees required in DV2015 yet a lower CN cutoff than DV2014, the cutoff should be higher. Must be a mistake somewhere
  • The response rate for OC < 50%+ however your calculation assumes 100% follwup by winners
  • It also assumes 1 family member per CN, when it is more like 1.8%?
  • Where'd you get 3,499 selectees from?
  • Between CN0001 and CN1500 the holes rate is 10%, how does that affect your calculations? (FYI CN1401-CN1500 is 20% holes)
Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to complete this evening - but a couple of quick things. The OC derivative rate (based on 2013 numbers) is actually 1.59 - so we should see 2207 cases. We actually see 2111 - so we might be missing about 100 cases or the derivative rate has changed. I applied a small (3%) decrease in dervative rate because of the reduction in the global derivative rate. If I remove that 3% reduction (i.e. assume the identical derivative rate as 2013) then the calculation suggests we should have 2140 cases (true derivative rate of 1.634) instead of the 2207.

The response rate you are using above seems VERY low - I need to check that tomorrow. How did you get the <50% number?
 
Britsimon said:
I'm not going to complete this evening - but a couple of quick things. The OC derivative rate (based on 2013 numbers) is actually 1.59 - so we should see 2207 cases. We actually see 2111 - so we might be missing about 100 cases or the derivative rate has changed. I applied a small (3%) decrease in dervative rate because of the reduction in the global derivative rate. If I remove that 3% reduction (i.e. assume the identical derivative rate as 2013) then the calculation suggests we should have 2140 cases (true derivative rate of 1.634) instead of the 2207.

The response rate you are using above seems VERY low - I need to check that tomorrow. How did you get the <50% number?
Click to expand...

In DV2014 592 cases responded to their win out of 1450. Assuming around 130 holes (based on DV2015 missing CNs below 1450) we can see non-responders in DV2014 were 728.

Total original CNs: 1450
Holes: 130
Valid CNs: 1320

Responded: 592
No-response: 728
 
guestgulkan said:
In DV2014 592 cases responded to their win out of 1450. Assuming around 130 holes (based on DV2015 missing CNs below 1450) we can see non-responders in DV2014 were 728.

Total original CNs: 1450
Holes: 130
Valid CNs: 1320

Responded: 592
No-response: 728
Click to expand...

Yeah I can see what you mean. However there are some oddball factors.
  • The AOS rate in OC seems to be fairly high (judging by the gap between the calculated quota and the CP visas issued). DV4Roger calculated the AOS rate at 12.3% (based on a few years data).
  • The CP issued was 660 CEAC, 661 official. The AOS cases probably added another 100 visas - let's say 60 cases.
  • Another factor that causes issues is the derivative rate. It changes (grows). People get married (some because of the win), babies are born and so on. So - you can't predict using the derivative rate from the end of year results - you have to use the beginning derivative rate. I can calculate that various ways - but let's just settle on 1.65 (instead of the 1.79 the end of year results would suggest).
  • Then the other factor is density. I don't understand why, but the density in OC seems higher this year. DV2014 was strangely low (max case number was around 3200 for 4215 selectees) and this year appears to be 2306 for 3499 selectees (although as I have said we might not be seeing the last few cases at all). If we use the 1.65 for both years we should have 2555 real cases in 2014 (20% holes) and 2121 cases in 2015 (8% holes)
  • So - Add the 60 to the 592 and then consider the density - so I don't think the non response was quite as high as you think - although it is still high. I calculate 44% non responses for 2014. 652/(1450*0.8).

Now - We know the issued rate at the embassies (average of 63.7%) for those that respond for CP cases (AOS we don't know).
We could take out the CP rate (87%) from the quota and say there are 725 CP visas available or we could assume work with the AOS cases - but I think AOS would have a higher success rate.
We know the derivative rate must be about 1.65.
So the 725 is 440 actual cases at a success rate of 63.7%.
So far that is pretty solid - right?

That means OC will need 690 cases (CP) or 780 cases with AOS (generously) Let's settle on 780 cases and apply the math?

So - how many non responses do you want to add and what density?

780 cases at 92% density = 848 case numbers and apply the non response rate for last year (44%) - that comes to 1514 (a bit healthier than my earlier rough guesstimate). I think this is a more accurate method.

Thoughts?
 
Britsimon said:
780 cases at 92% density = 848 case numbers and apply the non response rate for last year (44%) - that comes to 1514 (a bit healthier than my earlier rough guesstimate). I think this is a more accurate method.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

That would be tremendously frustrating!

My hope is that with OC the numbers are so low that they are prone to fluctuate, as they seem to have done over the past few years. A borderline case number means a really teeth-gritting year. I still mutter occasionally about KCC's blasé attitude in massively, massively over-selecting for OC.

Keep that in mind, ye DV2016 people reading this in a few months' time.
 
connectedspace said:
That would be tremendously frustrating!

My hope is that with OC the numbers are so low that they are prone to fluctuate, as they seem to have done over the past few years. A borderline case number means a really teeth-gritting year. I still mutter occasionally about KCC's blasé attitude in massively, massively over-selecting for OC.

Keep that in mind, ye DV2016 people reading this in a few months' time.
Click to expand...

Yep it is only a prediction. The response rate in particular could be affected by the DS260 craziness and unless they pull their fingers out we might see the backlog still in place late in the game. If that is true, then people submitting very late (it happens every year) will not have time to process their forms.
 
Britsimon said:
Yep it is only a prediction. The response rate in particular could be affected by the DS260 craziness and unless they pull their fingers out we might see the backlog still in place late in the game. If that is true, then people submitting very late (it happens every year) will not have time to process their forms.
Click to expand...

And I feel for the low cn folks who thought they had a lot of wriggle room with submitting their forms.

Anyway, forgot to thank you for your outstanding work crunching all these numbers. Gives me the luxury to get on here and moan. Vive l'indolence.
 
connectedspace said:
And I feel for the low cn folks who thought they had a lot of wriggle room with submitting their forms.

Anyway, forgot to thank you for your outstanding work crunching all these numbers. Gives me the luxury to get on here and moan. Vive l'indolence.
Click to expand...
How much of a difference would it make for people who submitted the DS260 in January? I am case 9xx . Does a late submission for the ds260 mean a later interview compared to the other who would be 9xx?
 
It might, although I suspect @Britsimon and @SusieQQQ will have a better idea.

I think it will depend on when the 9XX-ers go current. We submitted ours in July, re-opened briefly in August and resubmitted the same day. I'm hopeful that there won't be any delay for us.

Say we go current in April, you have to factor in processing and scheduling time. Even once they process the DS260, they then need to schedule in a time for interview.
 
Hey all, this thread has been mighty helpful but I'm just wanting some clarification on my situation. I was selected in the 2015 lottery with 2015OC000006XX (January cusp) and submitted my DS260 on the 25th June. I have been in touch with the KCC because originally I had put AOS instead of SYDNEY as my post (long story). Everything seems to be in line now and I am just waiting for my interview time to be scheduled. My questions are:

1. Should I already have an interview time scheduled or is it still a little early considering my number only just became current in the VB for January?
2. In the CAEC my status is showing 'at NVC'. Is that good or bad? I was hoping it might say in transit or ready by now??
3. What is the average time between receiving the interview time and location and the actual interview?
4. Are there any other people on here between 650 and 700 that are in the same boat?

Thanks
Kiel
 
Kiel said:
Hey all, this thread has been mighty helpful but I'm just wanting some clarification on my situation. I was selected in the 2015 lottery with 2015OC000006XX (January cusp) and submitted my DS260 on the 25th June. I have been in touch with the KCC because originally I had put AOS instead of SYDNEY as my post (long story). Everything seems to be in line now and I am just waiting for my interview time to be scheduled. My questions are:

1. Should I already have an interview time scheduled or is it still a little early considering my number only just became current in the VB for January?
2. In the CAEC my status is showing 'at NVC'. Is that good or bad? I was hoping it might say in transit or ready by now??
3. What is the average time between receiving the interview time and location and the actual interview?
4. Are there any other people on here between 650 and 700 that are in the same boat?

Thanks
Kiel
Click to expand...

My number is 2015OC0000007XX - I submitted my DS-260 on 20th May and I was notified on 12th December that my interview has been scheduled for February 10th.
 
Carolineinthecity said:
My number is 2015OC0000007XX - I submitted my DS-260 on 20th May and I was notified on 12th December that my interview has been scheduled for February 10th.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. So your number wasn't even technically current according to the bulletin when you received your interview time? It must have something to do with the time you put in the DS260 instead. I hope mine isn't delayed too much. I might email the KCC again to be sure though. Thanks
 
Kiel said:
That's interesting. So your number wasn't even technically current according to the bulletin when you received your interview time? It must have something to do with the time you put in the DS260 instead. I hope mine isn't delayed too much. I might email the KCC again to be sure though. Thanks
Click to expand...

My number is current, the VB came out 9th December for February interviews - up to 775 for OC, my case number is below 775
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top