Search results

To me that sounds like by the end of May (2013) much more applicants responded to KCC than by end of January (2014). More will have to respond yet. Another reason is Ukraine. It's numbers stopped on 14682 in DV-13, but will continue further in DV-14 (approximately until 20K, but I am currently...

Yes, Jan 11th is mine

The short answer is No. The long answer is there are no updates on January 14th, I checked all possible years.

No, those are rank numbers 16701 through 20050 only, they all have status Ready at this point, and no visas have been issued so far. Just not all consulates entered them into the system. In several days the situation will change. 129 consulates are in CEAC system for DV-2013. I think 2 more...

Yes, but the time I ran it only 13 consulates provided data for CEAC. I expect twice as that amount.

I would think it makes more sense to run it next weekend.

Nope. 2954. However, it is too early to run it - many consulate have not entered applicants yet. There will be less holes

I could. I just would not do that often. For EU that is 5 times longer than update for new numbers only I ran EU, OC, SA, AS - new numbers only. Many consulates are not ready. EU has 396 numbers between 16701 and 20050. AS has 54 numbers between old and new cutoff SA has 4 numbers OC has 19...

I am running EU 16701 trough 20050 The whole week was extremely busy at work.

SA has a similar Cuban effect (enormous rate of refusals in Havana). However, Cuba has much less proportion in SA than Fiji in OC, and also refusal rate for Fiji is much higher than for Cuba. But it is based on DV-13 figures already, with all those affects on top.

Attribution for SA. 1250-1550 is regular estimate based on DV-13 numbers (we do not know the max number in SA, the best I know is 2xxx, and we do not know if the density of holes has changed) 7% on top is Cuban effect (enormous amount refusal in Havana), similar to Fiji effect. It could happen...

So far the density of non-holes in OC in DV-14 (for those who sent docs to KCC) is at least 47%, according to CEAC data, (and that is early January) vs about 52% in D-13 (and that is in late May). By late May it could increase because people still could apply. So even if the check improved and...

The only change in participation in DV-14 was Guatemala (SA) included. SA, NA and AS are overrepresented regions, and AF, EU ad OC are underrepresented ones. A change in country selection in one of overrepresented regions would be caused (if you know the 203(c) formula) by a redistribution of...

You are forgetting about huge additional selection in 2003. 86169 does not include that. The way how I see that is the following. 1. In 2003 they improved checks for duplicates tremendously. They had to do additional selection because of that, because consulates refused a lot of applications...

I did not quite get your question. EU had 35868 winners in DV-2004, and it had 21719 visas issued in DV-2004. What is 24192 in DV-2004?

I could run new numbers only (between new cutoffs and previous cutoffs), except Africa. I could also run between 21750 and 25000 for Africa, but that will not include new numbers for special countries in Africa

As I said, because of uncertainty of Fiji effect (that gives additional 13% difference) I cannot shrink it less than it is now - 30% difference between the upper and low bound. But anyway, I am sure it will be less than upper 21xx with all those effects alltogether

There are two ways to approach the problem. 1. Assume that final response rate in DV-14 is the same as DV-13. That is logical, there could be some small error. 2. Look at the current response rate according to CEACdata. That one could change overtime. The first way is better, and the error...

There are two ways to calculate the number of holes. 1. Absolute way. If you know that EU numbers go up to 54000, and there know amount of winners, you calculate the exact number of holes. That one does not decrease 2. From CEAC data. That is up-to-date number of holes, and that oine could...

If you are asking me about the density of holes (not plurality), I do not care. My calculations do not take the density of holes into account, and I do not care if it is the same as before or not. I do not need it because I know the max european number from forums and I know the total amount of...