Search results

---- http://fpc.state.gov/148253.htm Now, within that region, any applicant, irrespective of the country in that region, has an equal chance of being selected from that regional pot in the lottery. But no country in any region in anywhere in the world can receive more than 7 percent of the...

This suggests you need to put additional rule. estimated invalid rates are too high (actual invalid cases are lower than your calculation) + another factor such as preliminary 7% cap. What if invalid rates were set to lower than you calculated, and discontinue iteration of Ukraine and...

If you follow US Embassy Turkey DV interview schedule throughout a year, you would get an idea about this. As long as I followed that site for DV2010 by eye, I did not find any special/strange distribution, but of course, no guarantee. Unfortunately I didn't save it.

Thanks, I don't hesitate to use the outcomes from your calculation at least for DV2012 AS region, since Bangladesh winners were less than around 6000. I think they have the right to set 5-7000 as preliminary cap on the basis of 7% rule, depending on demand/success rate of visa issuance in a...

Visa Bulletin and this forum. It looked like cut off numbers just before being current for all applicants were less than winners for DV2008 and before, and since DV2009, AS cut off consistently exceeds winners (30000 or higher before being current). However I've noticed AF case numbers slightly...

http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?323928-high-case-number-Or-Low&p=2295365&highlight=#post2295365 http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?323928-high-case-number-Or-Low&p=2295919&highlight=#post2295919 I was born in Japan and I've never had nationalities except Japan, I was...

As for DV2011: http://www.usemb-ankara.org.tr/consular/english/schedule_dv.html Many AS winners>15000 One AF >90000 As for DV2012 May selection (which was error): http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/05/166811.htm 22k selectees did not include family members, just primary applicants.

Nobody says impossible. In the meantime do you know denominator of "90 % sham marriage"? 90% from how many actual people? Nine couples out of 10 new marriage are considered sham, for example. It is possible.

http://www.cis.org/articles/1997/IR28/visa_lottery.html 1996 Lagos, Nigeria. How could 7K become 15K with pop-ups fraud ? 804 pop-ups is too few, and 50-90%(if same to Gahna, Ethiopia) is still too few.

How could less than 800 pop-ups reach 15K in total?

That's what I've done before. Because average probability of visa issuance per winner should be 25% (200K vs 50K visa) or 50% (100K vs 50K visa), even 2 winners in a country could mask what we want to see in this context. Visa issuance of a country with only one winner is all or nothing...

A lawyer in a small firm, who took care of my H1B visa, did my DV entry on my behalf for free. I sent him a new photo every year anyway. The firm was about to go bankrupt by the time I won, so I did further processing on my own. That firm did not ask me to pay actually. After wining, I learned...

Why do you need such privacy information? For your bias? That is true, and it does not mean like that. More possible stories:)

That's not my business. I am not a fraudulent person and I am not in charge of fraud detection. Duplicates are decreasing, still high fraud level, no evidence of improvement of visa issuance (potentially even worse), taking all these into consideration other frauds which are not detectable...

I don't disagree with your assumption. Quite frankly I don't know which is correct. I always pay attention to this issue whenever I read DV-related documents, and so far, either could. I check both cases when I calculate wining probability or other stuff. For example, going back to FY1996 table...

I agree, in the meantime,,, Again, despite high fraud level, duplicates are decreasing across year, regardless of interpretation (8.5% or 50% or whatever). I speculate multiple entries which do not look alike (each looks like unique) and/or other types of fraud are/is increasing. So far, I...

I tried, but failed to get this. Could you please let me know where it is?

From what I cited in my previous post, matching procedure applied to all entries before selection process, then facial recognition software applied to selectees. So, in my understanding 92378 out of 9.5million means approx. 1%, plus 7622, 7.5% of selectees suggesting 7.5% of all entries ...

X is for A and X' is for B. It could be the case, although that's not simple and sounds ad-hoc. The other interpretation I mentioned is simpler and also it could be. Not clear. But sometimes less than 100,000 winners in fact. Your explanation sounds ad-hoc. 200,000 with derivatives is always...

registered and notified. A and B. Derivatives are not notified in fact. More than 100,000, less than half.... It is still true even if 6000 is PA only.... Not clear to me.