It's a genuine – though common – mistake to spot VB numbers. The only reliable information is CEAC. We have that for DV-2016.
DV 2016 Winners Meet Here
- Thread starter n.n.
- Start date
SusieQQQ
Well-Known Member
I'm confused by your second sentence, you talk about historical numbers for 2016 meaning he wouldn't have an interview but we don't have the final cut off for Africa for 2016 yet, so how can you make that statement? 2015 only it would have been too high- but not before that.
MissM88
Active Member
Everyone can calm down no need to be rude (in reference to the person that emailed me, not even going to respond to the ridiculous email). Some people need to get off their high horse
The 2016 was an error - I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong (hence how I worded it - "I may have read it wrong"), I was referring to Britsimon's table not realising that the VB's for 2016 had not yet finished (I quickly looked and not having followed this process religiously I didnt stop to think and use my brain that all the VB's for 2016 are not yet done). I'm not an expert on the process nor have I ever claimed to be
Like I said in my post I may have read it wrong, and after going off 2015 it would have been high which is something I feel this person should know, not just be told it's fine (But that is just my opinion - not having a go at anyone that holds a different one)
The 2016 was an error - I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong (hence how I worded it - "I may have read it wrong"), I was referring to Britsimon's table not realising that the VB's for 2016 had not yet finished (I quickly looked and not having followed this process religiously I didnt stop to think and use my brain that all the VB's for 2016 are not yet done). I'm not an expert on the process nor have I ever claimed to be
Like I said in my post I may have read it wrong, and after going off 2015 it would have been high which is something I feel this person should know, not just be told it's fine (But that is just my opinion - not having a go at anyone that holds a different one)
SusieQQQ
Well-Known Member
Wow - a couple of people point out an error and you tell "everyone" to "calm down"? I don't know what email you're talking about but I don't see anything rude in the posts above to generate the kind of response you posted. Surely you don't expect everyone else to keep quiet so as not to hurt your feelings rather than pointing out a mistake?
Sorry to hear about the flames.
For high case numbers the final months seem to be extremely stressful and people seek advice/comfort on this forum. Sadly, historical cut-off numbers are of "no" use if you want to know the final cut-off for a particular year. So I strongly disapprove any speculation based on historical numbers.
Sorry if my earlier comment sounded rude.
MissM88
Active Member
I wasnt referring to you - Not sure where you got the idea I was referring to posts when I specifically said "in reference to the person that emailed me"
and my feelings aren't hurt. It's the internet - no reason for people to get offended/upset over people they dont even know. If my post agitated you, it wasnt supposed to as it wasnt even directed to you. People take things different ways.But that's just my opinion and everyone is entitled to their own
In order to not side track the 2016 thread I'll just say congrats again to all the winners
Hope you move over safely and find happiness
Last edited:
SusieQQQ
Well-Known Member
I wasnt referring to you - Not sure where you got the idea I was referring to posts when I specifically said "in reference to the person that emailed me"
and my feelings aren't hurt. It's the internet - no reason for people to get offended/upset over people they dont even know. If my post agitated you, it wasnt supposed to as it wasnt even directed to you. People take things different ways.But that's just my opinion and everyone is entitled to their own
In order to not side track the 2016 thread I'll just say congrats again to all the winners
Maybe you knew what bit of your previously post you were directing to whom but it's not entirely obvious to everyone else (look at your bracket placement); so you tell "everyone" (your word) to calm down then say oh wait it was only one person in a private email. Huh? Neither is it obvious anyway why you are complaining about a private email in a public forum. None of our business or interest. Respond to the person or block them, don't moan about it here.
More significantly: You keep saying "just your opinion" and yada yada but people expect responses to be at least somewhat informed, so maybe it's better to keep your counsel till you have spent a bit more time understanding the process. To make a statement and then later admit you haven't even looked at the latest visa bulletin and you don't know where the current year numbers are...well, quite honestly I don't think that's a very responsible way to respond here. That's just my opinion, of course. It's the Internet and you can post what you want, but the reason that this forum is the most active on DV is because usually the answers are informed and so people tend to trust them. In the same way regulars will call out passers-by or newbies who seem to be shooting from the hip. Don't be surprised.
MissM88
Active Member
If someone takes "in reference to the person that emailed" as me saying "in reference to the person that posted" - I have no control over that.
I clearly stated with "I may have read it wrong" if someone automatically then thinks what Im saying is definately accurate even after I clearly say it may not be accurate, I " quite honestly I don't think that's a very responsible way to respond here". And I do actually think you need to calm down your responses are quite defensive and it's quite bizare but that's just how I take it. Just how I can't control how people take my posts
I'm not going to clog this thread anymore with responding to you so if you have an issue with me feel free to PM me but I dont see the sense in dragging it out on here.
Congrats to the 2016 winners
I clearly stated with "I may have read it wrong" if someone automatically then thinks what Im saying is definately accurate even after I clearly say it may not be accurate, I " quite honestly I don't think that's a very responsible way to respond here". And I do actually think you need to calm down your responses are quite defensive and it's quite bizare but that's just how I take it. Just how I can't control how people take my posts
I'm not going to clog this thread anymore with responding to you so if you have an issue with me feel free to PM me but I dont see the sense in dragging it out on here.
Congrats to the 2016 winners
SusieQQQ
Well-Known Member
If someone takes "in reference to the person that emailed" as me saying "in reference to the person that posted" - I have no control over that.
I clearly stated with "I may have read it wrong" if someone automatically then thinks what Im saying is definately accurate even after I clearly say it may not be accurate, I " quite honestly I don't think that's a very responsible way to respond here". And I do actually think you need to calm down your responses are quite defensive and it's quite bizare but that's just how I take it. Just how I can't control how people take my posts
I'm not going to clog this thread anymore with responding to you so if you have an issue with me feel free to PM me but I dont see the sense in dragging it out on here.
Congrats to the 2016 winners
I'm desperately trying to get you to stop clogging the threads with nonsense. You keep saying you will ...then keep doing it. And yes if you think I take this seriously - I do. This is a seriously life changing thing for many people and they take the responses here seriously. If you post something wrong that someone takes seriously, you may actually have a serious effect on that person's life. You don't seem to get this. Some vague disclaimer does not absolve you from posting bullshit even though you keep insisting it does. And if you think that's rude, tough. People posting uninformed responses with vague "I may not know what I'm talking about" bits is how forums become distrusted and fall into disuse. Grow up, keep quiet while you get to learn about how this actually works, and then start posting when you know what you're talking about rather than justifying endlessly afterwards and messing up what people have spent years building up here to be a trusted informative site.
Kitonyson
Member
@Kanji kindly refer to the table above by @DV4ROGER and see the comments by @Britsimon et al...all will be fine God willing.
@Kanji
You can safely ignore statements about your case if the poster refers to DV-2015, or to any other former lottery for that matter. DV-2015 isn't applicable for the following reasons:
1) AF region was messed up, leaving thousands of AF visas unclaimed. This was presumably due to the introduction of DS-260. The last Visa Bulletin seems to indicate that they are (now) aware of the situation.
2) The quota for AF has slightly risen, so even more available visas for the region.
3) EU region in particular is underselected, leaving thousands of visas unused. The law requires that these visas be redistributed to a large part to AF region. So AF is drowned with available visa numbers.
Can you miss out? Of course, but only if the visa office do their job worse than last year – and that is hardly conceivable.
You can safely ignore statements about your case if the poster refers to DV-2015, or to any other former lottery for that matter. DV-2015 isn't applicable for the following reasons:
1) AF region was messed up, leaving thousands of AF visas unclaimed. This was presumably due to the introduction of DS-260. The last Visa Bulletin seems to indicate that they are (now) aware of the situation.
2) The quota for AF has slightly risen, so even more available visas for the region.
3) EU region in particular is underselected, leaving thousands of visas unused. The law requires that these visas be redistributed to a large part to AF region. So AF is drowned with available visa numbers.
Can you miss out? Of course, but only if the visa office do their job worse than last year – and that is hardly conceivable.
Last edited:
Britsimon
Super Moderator
You are a more certain about a couple of things than I.
1. As far as I can tell the visas being left unclaimed were more to do with no shows. I think it is a "stretch" to assume they are aware of the situation (or at least a stretch to assume they will remedy it. The last VB shows they scheduled cases as usual (according to availability), or maybe slightly higher. However, there are still many people who have not received their 2NLs since the other day. That might indicate that KCC did over schedule (which would be the right thing to deal with no shows), but the embassies may be pushing back on appointment slots. That would push July interviews into August and a low next VB. So - it is too early to celebrate.
3. It would be more accurate to say the law "allows" not "requires" (which implies they must use these visas). If they have a shortfall again, no one will lose their job.
Lastly could the job be done badly again. I could conceive of that!
I'm not a native speaker but
[...] the excess visa numbers shall be made available [...]
rings as a requirement in my ear.
Britsimon
Super Moderator
I am a native speaker - and that is why I am making the distinction.