Immigrant NumberVisa Issuances in the Diversity Immigrant

[aos13]

I checked it. I see 27xxx notified in May and 28xxx-30xxx on October 22nd
Where did you see the number 33088?
If so, that is quite a lot of numbers in the second batch from Europe. Not huje, but not tiny as wellBut there are about 61K total numbers from Europe. About 33K are open right now.

You have read everything except the obvious ?
http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_5715.html

If you add them up it is 33088 for Europe, and it is 33K out of 105K, so by your logic they should have announced only half of it. If 105K is all they have selected, then there is no 61K for Europe.

And no, they could have easily checked for duplicates before selection, and they should have. If I enter 1000 entries and my country has a quota of 3000, I'm messing up everybody's chances even though I'll be eliminated at some point. Unless they are willing to do a new draw every time after they eliminate a mess like this, it would not be a fair process. So the only fair way of doing this is at least to remove the duplicates before the draw, and after that they can scrutinize the potential selectees more strictly.

 

[enchevetrement]

No, that is not the main reason. The main reason was that there was no second batch. And that was because of the court.

Hi raevsky,

Is this based on official publication?

in the conference of October 1st 12 MS. Thurmond said about a 'second draw' that

"...it is a practice we’ve done in the past, but this is the first time that people have to check back in to find out if they were selected as part of the second group.
"

In DV13 they stated explicitly that
"remember to keep your confirmation, since more DV 2013 entrants may be selected on October 1, 2012".

In DV12 they did not mention another selections. So I wonder if they had any intention to do a second draw in DV12 regardless of the lawsuit

 

[aos13]

In DV12 they did not mention another selections. So I wonder if they had any intention to do a second draw in DV12 regardless of the lawsuit

It is hard to believe it has anything to do with the lawsuit. The court can't really order them not to do a second batch, or anything else for that matter; as it is stated in the court decision, it is not court's job to tell them how to do the drawing or remedy the situation. They may choose to stop doing the second batch as a precaution until court proceedings are finalized but they still had time to do the second batch after the final decision (July?).

And I definitely don't think that they didn't do it to save their testimonies about big numbers etc.etc. It doesn't make any sense. The only sensible albeit not very satisfactory explanation, and hopefully the final answer to this thread's original question, is that a lot of people did not find out about redrawing until it was too late.

This is not a very satisfactory answer, because people were sent e-mails with their DV entry numbers to recheck whether they won the second draw. Maybe a lot of them did not receive the e-mail, or did not believe in the e-mail, or it went to their spam folder, or something else.

Remember, people send their forms to KCC as soon as they find out in May, and KCC has enough time to evaluate the demand and estimate if they'd do a second batch in October. This time they didn't have that much time because of the redraw in July, maybe they waited too long to estimate the demand (a lot of people may have found about their situation months later) and were not able to do a second batch. Whatever the reason, I'm sure it won't repeat any time soon.

 

[enchevetrement]

You have read everything except the obvious ?
http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_5715.html

If you add them up it is 33088 for Europe, and it is 33K out of 105K, so by your logic they should have announced only half of it. If 105K is all they have selected, then there is no 61K for Europe.

And no, they could have easily checked for duplicates before selection, and they should have. If I enter 1000 entries and my country has a quota of 3000, I'm messing up everybody's chances even though I'll be eliminated at some point. Unless they are willing to do a new draw every time after they eliminate a mess like this, it would not be a fair process. So the only fair way of doing this is at least to remove the duplicates before the draw, and after that they can scrutinize the potential selectees more strictly.

Hi aos13

raevsky posted here a very interesting link to a document called "Fraud Risks Complicate State's Ability to Manage Diversity Visa Program" published by GAO

To summarize the 50 pages (and leaving aside the catfight between "State" and "GAO" )

• The document describes the situation in 2007
  
  
• Page 9 and 10 describes the process performed by KCC for DV08:
  
  1. KCC screens all entries, and may disqualify aliens who entered the lottery more than once.
  
  2. Acceptable entries are run through a computer-generated random drawing administered by KCC.
  
  
• In page 27 they add another step:
  
  3. Next, all principal applicant entries selected in the lottery are checked with facial recognition software against galleries (by region and by gender) drawn from the entire e-DV database to further eliminate duplicate entries based on photo matches. Possible matches are returned to KCC’s facial recognition technicians, who then make a determination on whether or not a valid match exists.
  
  
• All disqualification done by KCC are done before they notify the selected entries. KCC do not have the authority to disqualify an entry that has been notified (page 28).
  
  According to the document:
  
  4. KCC now forwards the information on the facial recognition match to the post so the consular officer can make the decision
  
  
• The number of duplicate entries (in the entire pool of entries) is very small (page 27)
  
  5. KCC reported that it detected 7,622 multiple entries in 2005, 7,166 in 2006, and 3,969 in 2007
  
  
• Next, KCC flag any entries that are suspected to be a fraud (mostly, what they call "pop-ups" - page21), page 28:
  
  
  6. In addition to facial recognition software, KCC employees search for other fraud indicators as they collect additional documents from individuals selected in the lottery
  

---

So the process seems to be as follows (in 2007 anyways)

1. Scan the DB for duplicates (several thousands entries out of the million are disqualified)
   
2. Reorder the entries in a random order (i.e. entries are 'selected')
   
3. Check the photo of the selected entries using a facial recognition software against all entries to locate duplicates. Then manually verify the duplicates and flag them
   
4. Flag any suspected entry with "fraud flags"
   
5. Schedule an interview and send the files to the posts, some with fraud flags attached to them.
   

So from what I understand KCC disqualifies only several thousand entries that are exact duplicate. All the rest is up to the consular officers at the posts

I find this interesting especially when examining the case numbers being interviews in the Ankara embassy (mostly Iranians). But this is for another post...

 

[aos13]

Hi aos13
So the process seems to be as follows (in 2007 anyways)

1. Scan the DB for duplicates (several thousands entries out of the million are disqualified)
   
2. Reorder the entries in a random order (i.e. entries are 'selected')
   
3. Check the photo of the selected entries using a facial recognition software against all entries to locate duplicates. Then manually verify the duplicates and flag them
   
4. Flag any suspected entry with "fraud flags"
   
5. Schedule an interview and send the files to the posts, some with fraud flags attached to them.

This makes sense, they can (and should) easily eliminate duplicates based on text information (name and all biographic information being a perfect match), and then do the drawing, and eliminate more based on facial recognition and other fraud indicators. So this explains why there are holes in case numbers and why those numbers don't stop at 105K or whatever regional quota.

Also, it may be the case that they announce all 105K in May, receive people's forms and flag the possible frauds, then decide whether they can fill that year's quota or they need to announce more.

 

[raevsky]

You have read everything except the obvious ?
http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigra...ypes_5715.html

If you add them up it is 33088 for Europe, and it is 33K out of 105K, so by your logic they should have announced only half of it. If 105K is all they have selected, then there is no 61K for Europe.

And no, they could have easily checked for duplicates before selection, and they should have. If I enter 1000 entries and my country has a quota of 3000, I'm messing up everybody's chances even though I'll be eliminated at some point. Unless they are willing to do a new draw every time after they eliminate a mess like this, it would not be a fair process. So the only fair way of doing this is at least to remove the duplicates before the draw, and after that they can scrutinize the potential selectees more strictly.

The number 33088 was used in a different context, as a rank number of a particular winner from Europe.

then in october from that number up to 33K or 33088

So, I though that you saw someone with number 33088. Now I see it was wrong. As I said, they notified numbers between 28K and 30K. Numbers higher than 30K up to 61K were not notified yet.

As I said, those 33088 numbers from Europe are spread out from EU1 to EU61xxx, and the rest of numbers between EU1 and EU61K is junk, they do not correspond to winners

 

[raevsky]

In DV13 they stated explicitly that
"remember to keep your confirmation, since more DV 2013 entrants may be selected on October 1, 2012".

Incorrect. THis statement is taken from the question, not from the answer.


The answer was "to check back in to find out if they were selected as part of the second group"

In DV12 they did not mention another selections. So I wonder if they had any intention to do a second draw in DV12 regardless of the lawsuit

They have this intention every year, just in case something wrong happens

 

[raevsky]

It is hard to believe it has anything to do with the lawsuit. The court can't really order them not to do a second batch, or anything else for that matter; as it is stated in the court decision, it is not court's job to tell them how to do the drawing or remedy the situation. They may choose to stop doing the second batch as a precaution until court proceedings are finalized but they still had time to do the second batch after the final decision (July?).

One of their arguments in court was that they have enough applications, more than enoguh. Second batch would reveal they lied to court. That is why second bacth was not used.

Remember, people send their forms to KCC as soon as they find out in May, and KCC has enough time to evaluate the demand and estimate if they'd do a second batch in October. This time they didn't have that much time because of the redraw in July, maybe they waited too long to estimate the demand (a lot of people may have found about their situation months later) and were not able to do a second batch. Whatever the reason, I'm sure it won't repeat any time soon.

The lawsuit was filed right after the draw. They did not have any time

 

[raevsky]

1.Scan the DB for duplicates (several thousands entries out of the million are disqualified)

Out of 100,000. They even say that in percent. They state 7%. Only potential winners are verified with facial recognition.

2.Reorder the entries in a random order (i.e. entries are 'selected')

3.Check the photo of the selected entries using a facial recognition software against all entries to locate duplicates. Then manually verify the duplicates and flag them

That is where 7% was disqualified.

So from what I understand KCC disqualifies only several thousand entries that are exact duplicate. All the rest is up to the consular officers at the posts

Only entries that have picture coinciding as files are disqualified at KCC. Those that are the same person but different file, go to the consulate for the consul to make final decision

I find this interesting especially when examining the case numbers being interviews in the Ankara embassy (mostly Iranians). But this is for another post...

Yes, especially number EU45xxx last year that was on Ankara website. While the total amount winners from Europe was 31,001 in DV-2012. Also, VB publication in May stated 40,000 for Europe.

 

[raevsky]

This makes sense, they can (and should) easily eliminate duplicates based on text information (name and all biographic information being a perfect match),

They do not use text information, because they havce a much better technology - facial recognition.

and then do the drawing, and eliminate more based on facial recognition and other fraud indicators. So this explains why there are holes in case numbers and why those numbers don't stop at 105K or whatever regional quota.

Yes, you got it. Holes are because entries are disqualified

Also, it may be the case that they announce all 105K in May, receive people's forms and flag the possible frauds, then decide whether they can fill that year's quota or they need to announce more.

What they additionally notify is the part of original 105K. They just need to figure out how much more to announce

 

[raevsky]

BTW. Court material. http://www.egorka.org/dv2012/ - several hundred pages. Enjoy. Kirit Amin declarations (the only pieces from DOS official) are the most important piece, but there are a lot of other interesting thing (like their lawyer stated that they had a lot of visa applications; even though in VB they claimed a threat to the quota of not being filled just in a couple of months)

 

[aos13]

They do not use text information, because they havce a much better technology - facial recognition.
...
One of their arguments in court was that they have enough applications, more than enoguh. Second batch would reveal they lied to court. That is why second bacth was not used.

OK now you are just making things up. First, facial recognition is not a "better" technology than simple data mining. Second, you keep accusing government agencies conspiring to commit forgery. I like a good conspiracy theory every now and then, but this is ridiculous.

The issue at the court was whether or not the first draw was legal/random, and if DoS had a right to repeat it. And honestly, whatever little (i.e. slim to none) chance those poor 22K people had in court was totally squandered by their lawyers' ridiculous claims. The issue was NOT how many applicants there were etc. And even for your sake say it's true that they lied, do you really think they are stupid enough not to realize that it can easily be refuted, even then, more so now. Anyways that's my 2 cents.

 

[raevsky]

OK now you are just making things up. First, facial recognition is not a "better" technology than simple data mining.

Using name spelling has potential problems. A person could be born in a country with alphabet other than Roman. That brings those people out of control. They are free to spell their name whatever they want, maybe submitting a lot of duplicate entries. Facial recognition does not have that problem.

Second, you keep accusing government agencies conspiring to commit forgery. I like a good conspiracy theory every now and then, but this is ridiculous.

I do not know about the reasons, but that is what happened. Their lawyer stated they have unusually large amount of applications. And 2 months later they stated in VB they are looking for more applications because they do not have enough.

 

[raevsky]

The issue at the court was whether or not the first draw was legal/random, and if DoS had a right to repeat it. And honestly, whatever little (i.e. slim to none) chance those poor 22K people had in court was totally squandered by their lawyers' ridiculous claims. The issue was NOT how many applicants there were etc. And even for your sake say it's true that they lied, do you really think they are stupid enough not to realize that it can easily be refuted, even then, more so now. Anyways that's my 2 cents.

Refuting is not easy. Also, the judge did not consider those arguments. That is why nothing to refute.

Anyway, you can see Chen's statement in March note and May visa bulletin claims contradictory thing. Kurzban ironizes on Chen's statement in July without calling him a liar even it is absolutely clear he was lying. Why did he do that? Probably, the same reason was why they did not do second batch.

 

[macemk]

The number 33088 was used in a different context, as a rank number of a particular winner from Europe.

So, I though that you saw someone with number 33088. Now I see it was wrong. As I said, they notified numbers between 28K and 30K. Numbers higher than 30K up to 61K were not notified yet.

As I said, those 33088 numbers from Europe are spread out from EU1 to EU61xxx, and the rest of numbers between EU1 and EU61K is junk, they do not correspond to winners

thanks for clarifying the matter, I'm so bad in figuring out how these numbers work and was wondering all the time cause something seemed definitely weird about them I just didn't know what so out of 61K European numbers only 33 were open to the public (the rest were junk or not belong to anyone in particular) but only CNs up to 30K were notified and that doesn't mean that's the exact number of people too, but less than that, cause there could are gaps in those numbers right? i think that's what ur trying to say. sorry if I'm slow lol

 

[aos13]

You can't even begin to imagine how many problems facial recognition has But anyways, they really had millions of applications, didn't they? I'm guessing it was to address this ridiculous "2 percent" issue brought by the lawyers. That's a different issue than the actual number of forms sent to KCC.

 

[raevsky]

2% issue did not have anything to do with facial recognition. And from my point of view, 2% argument (that their lawyers did not bring to court, finally dropped at the hearing) was the only chance (though still weak) to win the case. However, they elected to drop this argument even though the judge asked about it at the hearing. Because that would bring different clients of Kurzban to different situation

 

[raevsky]

thanks for clarifying the matter, I'm so bad in figuring out how these numbers work and was wondering all the time cause something seemed definitely weird about them I just didn't know what so out of 61K European numbers only 33 were open to the public (the rest were junk or not belong to anyone in particular)

Incorrect. There are only 33K winners, but their numbers are evenly spread out between EU1 and EU61K. Only about half of all numbers were open to the public, what is about 16.5K. They have numbers up to 31K.

but only CNs up to 30K were notified and that doesn't mean that's the exact number of people too, but less than that, cause there could are gaps in those numbers right? i think that's what ur trying to say.

Correct.

 

[aos13]

2% issue did not have anything to do with facial recognition.

I didn't say it does, you choose to misunderstand the point and steer the discussion away whenever you feel like you are "losing" the argument. As in the other thread, I give up.

 

[enchevetrement]

In DV13 they stated explicitly that
"remember to keep your confirmation, since more DV 2013 entrants may be selected on October 1, 2012".

Incorrect. THis statement is taken from the question, not from the answer.

The answer was "to check back in to find out if they were selected as part of the second group"

No. The quote is from the message given to those selected when they check their status. The message also appeared, with a bit different wording, in other official sites

In DV12 they did not mention another selections. So I wonder if they had any intention to do a second draw in DV12 regardless of the lawsuit

They have this intention every year, just in case something wrong happens

DV12 was the first in which notification letter was not sent. In previous years they simply sent a letter. In DV12 and up they need to explicitly inform participants to recheck their entry during the fiscal year to see if they got selected after May 1st. They did not do so in DV12. Not clear if this was intentional or an error.