Visa bulletin current in September 2013

[Bramb90]

Are arguments always annoying to you? Do you generally accept arguments as a matter of figuring out the truth? Or do you establish truth by other means? By religious beliefs? Any other kind of beliefs? Or by what means?
Whose arguments were annoying? Mine? The other user? Both?

LOL. You just proved my point and this it the last post in response to you. Unlike you, I don't like to clutter up threads.

 

[raevsky]

It's not, because I have seen the table breakdown where the total winners are divided into principals and derivatives and the numbers ADD UP to the total number of winners. What are you going to say when I find the link? That the whole table is a typo?

Well, that depends to what number. I am pretty sure you could add up principals and dependents together and they would come up to some number. As a mathematician, I know any two numbers could be added together. The question is to which one. It they would come to 105000, that is one story, and if they would come to 210000, that would be a very different story. Provide your link and we will figure out what that number is.

And of course this is not the same as some idiot trying to change a fact by making it a law.

That was not just some idiot. That was clear majority in the legislature. Are you saying the legislative chamber had more than 50% of idiots?

Completely false analogy. I don't doubt officials make mistakes, but I've seen the numbers backing up that statement.

Now we have a real conversation. Appreciate that. I hope you are going to provide proof of your words. Or some of the users would think you are a troll, as someone mentioned here.

And you will also know that there are years when more than 50000 DVs have been granted, so your random examples of more DVs in a particular country proves my point rather than yours, ie more dependents come into being during the process.

Do you refer to 51118 instead of 50000 in DV-11 as the largest discrepancy? Do you know that the overhead was 2.2%, not 27% as some cases I mentioned? Are you aware that the quota is 55000, not 50000? And DV only quota is 55000 minus Nacara? According to http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/fi...tion-statistics/yearbook/2011/ois_yb_2011.pdf , in 2011 3223 + 158 people got Nacara. Together with 51118 it is less than 55000. 51118 + 3223 + 158 = 54499. Less than 55000.

Someone on my local country forum married his pregnant girlfriend after his entry as a single person. They all got visas.

I agree, things happen. However, the number is ridiculose - 311 visas out of 245 family members. It requires first, all winners to send their forms to KCC (usually less than 50% of winners do that). And on top of that 27% to have additions to their families.

And your extract talks about a second selection, not hidden winners. She specifically says: more applicants selected in a second group. This is not the same as people being selected initially and not being told.

Where do you think the source of this second group is?

 

[raevsky]

I think he filled three pages in another thread because he was arguing with another user!

What a shame! Two users argue at the forum! What else is the forum for?

LOL. You just proved my point and this it the last post in response to you. Unlike you, I don't like to clutter up threads.

Unlike you I consider arguing, making valid arguments as the main way of approaching and finally finding the truth.

 

[monica1]

Please restrict your posts and language to useful information. Avoid personal remarks and offensive/insulting words.
We are closely monitoring this forum and the posts. In order to avoid a ban on your username, please adhere to the rules of the forums.
thanks

 

[Britsimon]

Yes and this not the first time! I think he filled three pages in another thread because he was arguing with another user! Very annoying for those who are just looking for information and not irrelevant assumptions or arguments.

I hear you BUT as has been pointed out some people (myself included) have learned much from reading the seemingly noise posts. This forum has a lot of repeated questions that are already answered in many threads so reading through all this stuff quickly educates and allows one (if so inclined) to assist others who need a quick answer to a question.

So - perhaps some of this is useless arguments but there is a lot of information there too. Surely we can decide for ourselves how much we want to read and how much we will simply ignore...

 

[Britsimon]

And your extract talks about a second selection, not hidden winners. She specifically says: more applicants selected in a second group. This is not the same as people being selected initially and not being told.

I agree with that. There was nothing in that quote that suggests the second group were preselected - so they could have been selected from the complete pool at a later date.

 

[Britsimon]

Unlike you I consider arguing, making valid arguments as the main way of approaching and finally finding the truth.

Yeah I agree with that method of determining the truth. However, we can do that in a more civil manner, surely.

 

[raevsky]

I agree with that. There was nothing in that quote that suggests the second group were preselected - so they could have been selected from the complete pool at a later date.

She clearly avoided the term used in the question itself (additional selection) and used a much more neutral term second group. Even though the term additional selection was used both in some DOS documents and in the question itself.

If no actual additional selection was done, just some hidden wins were open, it would be not logical to use the term additional selection, but term second group is a very valid one.
At the same time if that were in fact an actual additional selection, it would be more logical to use this term as it was used in both the wording of the question and in official DOS documents. However, term second group would be valid term too.

Anyway, the fact that she used this term, not the other, in the sense of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability makes it more highly probable that she did not think of actual additional selection versus without this conference.

 

[Britsimon]

She clearly avoided the term used in the question itself (additional selection) and used a much more neutral term second group. Even though the term additional selection was used both in some DOS documents and in the question itself.

Yes I see your point, but it isn't conclusive one way or another.

 

[raevsky]

Yes I see your point, but it isn't conclusive one way or another.

This point is not conclusive on it's own.
I provided a lot of points, some proving or some just leaning towards the number of winners being without dependents, and the only argument against it so far is the statement in 9 FAM (BTW also provided by myself)
My strongest argument is the math argument. 5 cases when 9 FAM statement is contradicting elementary logic, same as in pi bill. And a lot of additional supporting arguments too. Rebecca Thurmond argument is just one of those additional arguments. Kirit Amin argument another one, just stronger.

All I see on the other hand is unwillingness to consider the results of me applying the logic (in terms of final results). That is understandable but that is not an argument in discussion.

 

[Britsimon]

This point is not conclusive on it's own.
I provided a lot of points, some proving or some just leaning towards the number of winners being without dependents, and the only argument against it so far is the statement in 9 FAM.
My strongest argument is the math argument. 5 cases when 9 FAM statement is contradicting elementary logic, same as in pi bill. And a lot of additional supporting arguments too. Rebecca Thurmond argument is just one of those additional arguments

I was only referring to the second group being preselected or not.

As for the other point you are making, I believe (until someone can show otherwise) that the 125k would be applicants/selectees only and the 50k (55k) would be made up from selectees and derivatives. The CEAC information proves that conclusively to me as I stated earlier. The other information you have provided is informative and interesting but not needed to prove the one point for me at least.

I understand your statistical analysis on the cutoff points. I think (and hope) that your estimates are on the low side. However, the only logic I can use is the reasoning that in previous years the 105K wasn't enough and there was a need to increase this year to 125k (perhaps as you say, simply but not hiding some numbers). Your highest ranges, converted into global positions come out well below the 105k - so I don't see the need for the additional 20% this year or the previous second groups.

 

[raevsky]

I understand your statistical analysis on the cutoff points. I think (and hope) that your estimates are on the low side. However, the only logic I can use is the reasoning that in previous years the 105K wasn't enough and there was a need to increase this year to 125k (perhaps as you say, simply but not hiding some numbers). Your highest ranges, converted into global positions come out well below the 105k - so I don't see the need for the additional 20% this year or the previous second groups.

I think that is an independent decision.
1. One department in DOS made a decision to increase the number of winners to 125K.
2. At the very last moment another department independently decided to open all hidden winners. Maybe because their legality is questionable, maybe because of some other reasons.

Take into account that p.2 (any kind of transfer between open winners and hidden winners) does not change the published amount of winners. So p.1 and p.2 are completely separate and independent.

 

[dopos_d]

Dv 2014

Hello everyone, could you please consult me? my CN number is EU36XXX and I am from Moldova, since the VB is still current(33K) for August what are the real chances to get my case being processed?
There are people posting numbers higher than mine and they are still consulted that if they get lucky they will be called for an interview somewhere in 3rd quarter of 2014... But if the cut off on Sept 30th will be lower than their CN how can they be selected after it...

 

[raevsky]

Results for max open number for DV-13 are ready. Prospects for the corridor for max number invited for interview in DV-14 are clear too.
AF 97,000 - 116,400. We have seen wins up to 116,xxx, they are within the corridor and have a chance.
AS 10,700 - 12,800. We have seen wins up to 26,xxx. Unfortunately, at least 51% of those winners will not be invited to the interview (above 12,800).
EU 32,000 - 38,500. We have seen wins up to 54,000. Unfortunately, at least 29% of those winners will not be invited to the interview (above 38,500).
NA 2 - 25. Difficult to predict because of high volatility.
OC 1,640 - 1,970. We have seen wins up to 2,9xx. Unfortunately, at least 32% of those winners will not be invited to the interview (above 1,970).
SA 1,300 - 1,580. We have seen wins up to 2,xxx. Unfortunately, at least 21% of those winners will not be invited to the interview (above 1,580).

NA data has appeared on CEAC.
We already knew there are 16 winners from NA. Cutoff for August is 3, for September Current.
Max number on CEAC is 8.
NA3 - 6 family members, 6 visas issued
NA7 - 4 family members
NA8 - 2 family members

Totally, 3 numbers are to be interviewed (including the one with visas issued already), totally 12 family members.
As usual, max open number (8) is less then total number of winners (16).

 

[raevsky]

Still difficult to predict NA max passing number in 2014. Likely between 4 and 20.

 

[afro]

Dear all plzz help me my CN is 2014AF00067XXX what chances do i have to get interview?

 

[raevsky]

Very good chances

 

[afro]

thank u man ...thanks very much u gave me hope

 

[afro]

OK if i passed the interview there is a money that i have to transfer online so i can get the green card, can i pay that money cash through normal transfer? because i don't have credit card??????

 

[gabam]

Dear all plzz help me my CN is 2014AF00067XXX what chances do i have to get interview?

African case numbers of 75000 got their interviews in July this year. Your case number is way better than them. I am sure you will have your interview in June 2014. Best of luck!!!