DV13 stats released!!!

[Mijoro]

Raevsky are the numbers for this new cut off what you expected to see?

 

[raevsky]

Interesting to know.
I looked into CEAC data for 2013. What I see there on 9/20 and further for 3 consulates - ABD (Abu Dhabi), ANK (Ankara), YRV (Yerevan) for Asia
ABD - 1 visa on 22, 2 on 24, 2 on 26, 2 on 30
ANK - 16 on 20, 2 on 21, 8 on 22, 8 on 23, 11 on 24, 4 on 25, 14 on 26, 13 on 30
YRV - 14 on 20, 2 on 23, 2 on 24.

Totally 102 entries (those are entries, not visas).
Even if we exclude 9/20, we still see 72 entries got their visas after that before 9/30. It is hard to imagine those are visas for people other than Iranians.

I wonder what that all mean.

 

[Britsimon]

I found these stats regarding NACARA. They were pulled from the 2003 statistics, appendix E. Here is the link:

http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003 AppE.pdf

Unfortunately, I was unable to find any more recent document. It is 10 years old but it is interesting as it shows how the DV and Employment Preference visas are used to offset NACARA adjustments.

Do you think they only use DV visas for NACARA 202 or 203, or both?

This was an interesting post - thanks - it increases my understanding.

The number of NACARA visas listed on your link is section 202 visas. Your link demonstrates very well how they offset over time from the DV and EW visas. Your link provides data up to 2003, and from the link that Raevsky supplied we can get the remaining years data up to 2012. From the yearbook pages there is a link in each year labeled US Legal Permanent Residents <YEAR>. That gives a report that shows the section 202 and 203 numbers. Both numbers are tapering off. Section 203 is said to be without limit, and whilst it existed during the time period covered by your link it is not accounted for on your link. So actually I think we can entirely ignore section 203 visas. Anyone feel free to call me foolish on that.

So looking at Section 202 that tapered off quite rapidly. There was a offset (deficit to be repaid) of 35,907 according to your link in 2003 but having tracked the numbers I can say that the offset would have been wiped out by 2007 (assuming DV AND EW continued donating). If the donation came from DV only then the offset would have continued until 2011/2012.

Section 202 and 203 numbvers for 1998 to 2012 (2002 to 2012 for S203) can be seen below. Note that section 202 is probably less than 200 these days (183 in 2012).

202 203
1998 1
1999 11267
2000 23641
2001 18926
2002 9495 21603
2003 2577 27100
2004 2292 30136
2005 1155 15597
2006 661 25950
2007 340 11779
2008 296 8359
2009 296 4864
2010 248 3705
2011 158 3224
2012 183 2803

So - what does this all mean. Well it might be EVEN more optimistic than I mentioned earlier. If section 203 is not subjkect to the limit (meaning does not have to be repaid by the DV 5k) then the NACARA "debt" is probably repaid entirely by now (perhaps as early as 2006) and ongoing impact of NACARA is minimal. That would suggest they could go to something approaching 55k for DV and still be within limits!

Happy to get input on this although it is probably too hypothetical for anyone to care....

 

[Britsimon]

Interesting to know.
I looked into CEAC data for 2013. What I see there on 9/20 and further for 3 consulates - ABD (Abu Dhabi), ANK (Ankara), YRV (Yerevan) for Asia
ABD - 1 visa on 22, 2 on 24, 2 on 26, 2 on 30
ANK - 16 on 20, 2 on 21, 8 on 22, 8 on 23, 11 on 24, 4 on 25, 14 on 26, 13 on 30
YRV - 14 on 20, 2 on 23, 2 on 24.

Totally 102 entries (those are entries, not visas).
Even if we exclude 9/20, we still see 72 entries got their visas after that before 9/30. It is hard to imagine those are visas for people other than Iranians.

I wonder what that all mean.

Could that be AP cases where they had pre-allocated the visas and not given them back to the pool?

 

[House409]

This was an interesting post - thanks - it increases my understanding.

The number of NACARA visas listed on your link is section 202 visas. Your link demonstrates very well how they offset over time from the DV and EW visas. Your link provides data up to 2003, and from the link that Raevsky supplied we can get the remaining years data up to 2012. From the yearbook pages there is a link in each year labeled US Legal Permanent Residents <YEAR>. That gives a report that shows the section 202 and 203 numbers. Both numbers are tapering off. Section 203 is said to be without limit, and whilst it existed during the time period covered by your link it is not accounted for on your link. So actually I think we can entirely ignore section 203 visas. Anyone feel free to call me foolish on that.

So looking at Section 202 that tapered off quite rapidly. There was a offset (deficit to be repaid) of 35,907 according to your link in 2003 but having tracked the numbers I can say that the offset would have been wiped out by 2007 (assuming DV AND EW continued donating). If the donation came from DV only then the offset would have continued until 2011/2012.

Section 202 and 203 numbvers for 1998 to 2012 (2002 to 2012 for S203) can be seen below. Note that section 202 is probably less than 200 these days (183 in 2012).

202 203
1998 1
1999 11267
2000 23641
2001 18926
2002 9495 21603
2003 2577 27100
2004 2292 30136
2005 1155 15597
2006 661 25950
2007 340 11779
2008 296 8359
2009 296 4864
2010 248 3705
2011 158 3224
2012 183 2803

So - what does this all mean. Well it might be EVEN more optimistic than I mentioned earlier. If section 203 is not subjkect to the limit (meaning does not have to be repaid by the DV 5k) then the NACARA "debt" is probably repaid entirely by now (perhaps as early as 2006) and ongoing impact of NACARA is minimal. That would suggest they could go to something approaching 55k for DV and still be within limits!

Happy to get input on this although it is probably too hypothetical for anyone to care....

Thanks Simon. This is what I thought but was unsure. Looked to me they were using only 202 because 203 has a much higher number of visas. If 203 is not numerically limited, there won't be any point to allocate DV and EW visas, don't you think?

I have also found some other interesting documents. These are the cumulative reports for NACARA. I was unable to find a report more recent than 12/31/12. What it shows is that there were a few new NACARA applications still filed in 2012. So may be the DOS still keeps DV visas aside for NACARA just in case, because they may still receive new applications in 2014.

See links below for October and December 2012:

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...2013/March 2013/2012-12-Cumulative_NACARA.pdf

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...2013/March 2013/2012-10-Cumulative_NACARA.pdf

ZAR, ZCH,... Are the abbreviations for the USCIS field offices (Arlington, Chicago,...)

 

[Britsimon]

Thanks Simon. This is what I thought but was unsure. Looked to me they were using only 202 because 203 has a much higher number of visas. If 203 is not numerically limited, there won't be any point to allocate DV and EW visas, don't you think?

I have also found some other interesting documents. These are the cumulative reports for NACARA. I was unable to find a report more recent than 12/31/12. What it shows is that there were a few new NACARA applications still filed in 2012. So may be the DOS still keeps DV visas aside for NACARA just in case, because they may still receive new applications in 2014.

See links below for October and December 2012:

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...2013/March 2013/2012-12-Cumulative_NACARA.pdf

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...2013/March 2013/2012-10-Cumulative_NACARA.pdf

ZAR, ZCH,... Are the abbreviations for the USCIS field offices (Arlington, Chicago,...)

A while back I spent a long time trying to find info about NACARA, then you and Raevsky show that I aren't as good with a search engine as I thought I was...

NACARA was there to provide an amnesty route for immigrants from several countries who had settled with asylum in the early 90's. It makes perfect sense that the numbers are dropping and yes I agree that they are probably keeping the door slightly ajar just in case. I do think 203 is not an issue - so I am pretty confident we can count on using quite a number of these visas...

That could be a huge lift for the program to deal with the problem they have created through picking too many selectees. However, I really think they need to pick up the pace!

 

[House409]

A while back I spent a long time trying to find info about NACARA, then you and Raevsky show that I aren't as good with a search engine as I thought I was...

NACARA was there to provide an amnesty route for immigrants from several countries who had settled with asylum in the early 90's. It makes perfect sense that the numbers are dropping and yes I agree that they are probably keeping the door slightly ajar just in case. I do think 203 is not an issue - so I am pretty confident we can count on using quite a number of these visas...

That could be a huge lift for the program to deal with the problem they have created through picking too many selectees. However, I really think they need to pick up the pace!

They always write "up to 5,000 visas" can be used for NACARA adjustments. So even if they use a few hundreds, it may very well be that there intend is to reach as close as possible the 55,000 DV visas. Dv13 may very well be underfilled despite the 51,080 visas granted. How would you then make sure you get as close as possible to the 55k: well, by selecting more selectees.

That would be good news for the high CN numbers.

 

[c1984]

Yes I we agree that NACARA information could be slow.

Then is AOS controlled by NVC? OK I agree they are supposed to account for visas ahead of time but AOS is particularly difficult for them top track. KCC only get one 122 form - and they probably take the derivatives count from there but actual births could make a larger difference on AOS because AOS cases are handed off much earlier than CP cases (so more time for babies, marriages and so on).

I checked the World Bank number for "Crude birth rate" and some countries are approching 50 births per 1000 people per year.

Obviously where this counts most is for CP cases (the majority of cases) where in some countries I could imagine 50 births multiplied by 3.5 divided by the post interview prior to entry window - so rather than the 9 births we have discussed I could see that number being 70/80. You could also throw in a few marriages also as they could in theory get married and get a visa after interview and before entry.

Overall the lack of precision troubles me but doesn't surprise me. I think they need two or three months after the end of the year to issue a report because they also need to let the dust settle.

Simon,

People have reported that at their AOS interview, when the officer was trying to adjust their status right there, he had to "check out" a visa number from a central location; my guess being NVC. Apparently, there is an automatic mechanism put in place to keep a live tally of available visas to use. I'm guessing consulates would have to similarly "check out" visas from the same central system.

 

[raevsky]

Yes I we agree that NACARA information could be slow.

Then is AOS controlled by NVC? OK I agree they are supposed to account for visas ahead of time but AOS is particularly difficult for them top track. KCC only get one 122 form - and they probably take the derivatives count from there but actual births could make a larger difference on AOS because AOS cases are handed off much earlier than CP cases (so more time for babies, marriages and so on).

I checked the World Bank number for "Crude birth rate" and some countries are approching 50 births per 1000 people per year.

Obviously where this counts most is for CP cases (the majority of cases) where in some countries I could imagine 50 births multiplied by 3.5 divided by the post interview prior to entry window - so rather than the 9 births we have discussed I could see that number being 70/80. You could also throw in a few marriages also as they could in theory get married and get a visa after interview and before entry.

Overall the lack of precision troubles me but doesn't surprise me. I think they need two or three months after the end of the year to issue a report because they also need to let the dust settle.

The way Wolfsdorf described AOS is the following.
For CP they get visa number first, and if the interview is OK and no AP is required, they issue you the visa. For AOS the interview is first, then if it is OK, they request a visa number from KCC/NVC. If AP is required, it is before they request visa number.

Out of 3500 just a little bit more than half are principals, and the birth rate level is probably for them only. So, you multiply by 1.75, not by 3.5. Also, you need to divide by 2 because visa is valid for 6 months only, so you needs amount of birth within half a year. So we have 4 times less than your estimate.

 

[House409]

Simon,

People have reported that at their AOS interview, when the officer was trying to adjust their status right there, he had to "check out" a visa number from a central location; my guess being NVC. Apparently, there is an automatic mechanism put in place to keep a live tally of available visas to use. I'm guessing consulates would have to similarly "check out" visas from the same central system.

Yes, the consulates 'check out' is explained in the Foreign Affairs Manual 9 FAM 42.51:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87857.pdf

 

[Britsimon]

Simon,

People have reported that at their AOS interview, when the officer was trying to adjust their status right there, he had to "check out" a visa number from a central location; my guess being NVC. Apparently, there is an automatic mechanism put in place to keep a live tally of available visas to use. I'm guessing consulates would have to similarly "check out" visas from the same central system.

Yeah I hear you (good input) although the availability of systems is probably not uniform throughout all the consulates. I also wonder at the disconnect between NVC and KCC. These sort of agencies don't like to share information informally - they usually want to make that a formal process.... and thus introduce an element of lag.

 

[urbanite]

Simon,

People have reported that at their AOS interview, when the officer was trying to adjust their status right there, he had to "check out" a visa number from a central location; my guess being NVC. Apparently, there is an automatic mechanism put in place to keep a live tally of available visas to use. I'm guessing consulates would have to similarly "check out" visas from the same central system.

I confirm what c1984 mentioned. When I found out I was selected for further processing , I made an info pass to my local FO. I had no idea back then that my CN was high. What the officer told me when he saw my number was that when the times comes and if my number becomes current they have to check the system if there are visas available. I assumed back then that the system was National Visa Center (NVC)

 

[Britsimon]

The way Wolfsdorf described AOS is the following.
For CP they get visa number first, and if the interview is OK and no AP is required, they issue you the visa. For AOS the interview is first, then if it is OK, they request a visa number from KCC/NVC. If AP is required, it is before they request visa number.

Out of 3500 just a little bit more than half are principals, and the birth rate level is probably for them only. So, you multiply by 1.75, not by 3.5. Also, you need to divide by 2 because visa is valid for 6 months only, so you needs amount of birth within half a year. So we have 4 times less than your estimate.

The birth rate is per 1000 people, different rate for per 1000 women. I'll settle for half - call it 30. Now then - NACARA has probably been the missing link...

on the other hand - who the heck knows.....

 

[Britsimon]

Thanks all on the check out info - that does make sense. However, we know CEAC data is missing some data. I don't think it is a precise science that they know at any point in time how many visas are issued - remember it still it took them over 3 months to publish a report on these numbers. If it were readily available, why wait all this time to get the numbers out?

 

[raevsky]

Could that be AP cases where they had pre-allocated the visas and not given them back to the pool?

I still think they are supposed to release visa numbers back to KCC, and KCC is supposed to reallocate them to new applicants. But I might be mistaken. It seems like 42.51 PN3 confirms what I am saying.

 

[raevsky]

Thanks all on the check out info - that does make sense. However, we know CEAC data is missing some data. I don't think it is a precise science that they know at any point in time how many visas are issued - remember it still it took them over 3 months to publish a report on these numbers. If it were readily available, why wait all this time to get the numbers out?

They prepare all reports at once. Including those that are not quotaed

BTW, only 3 months passed sine the end of the year - not all visas were used yet, and not all babies born after visa was obtained entered US

 

[vladek15425]

Thanks vladek. Where do you get the number from?

if ethiopia hit the limit at 3774 is 7% of 53914 so the split with 55000 is 1086 nacara visa left over
this is how i calculated it

sory for late reply

 

[Britsimon]

They prepare all reports at once. Including those that are not quotaed

BTW, only 3 months passed sine the end of the year - not all visas were used yet, and not all babies born after visa was obtained entered US

Oh yes - good point!

 

[vladek15425]

Nacara 202 was 248, Nacara 203 - 3705 for 2010. And 3774/7% = 53914. If they include Nacara 203, then 7% is violated. If they include only 202, it is not violated. Also, there was no announcement that year that Ethiopia hit the limit. So, the limit could have been even higher, 53914 or even more.
In DV-13 we know Iran hit the limit, so we are more or less sure that 7% was taken from amount 3741/7% = 53443 (minus a few babies), not more than that. So I do not quite understand what exactly is included into the number from what 7% is taken.

How do did calculated the nacara visa given to the nacara people ?
I get the number 2796 can you rephrase your post again please?
Ps ; my maths are bit rusted

 

[Britsimon]

How do did calculated the nacara visa given to the nacara people ?
I get the number 2796 can you rephrase your post again please?
Ps ; my maths are bit rusted

Actally I am fairly confident that NACARA 203 is not counted from DV allowance so we are only talking about Section 202 - which is probably ~200 visas per annum...