• Hello Members, This forums is for DV lottery visas only. For other immigration related questions, please go to our forums home page, find the related forum and post it there.

2014 DV Australian winners

typo

Registered Users (C)
Is there a post you might be able to point me to that shows what the regional quotas/targets are for this year?
 

typo

Registered Users (C)
The problem with assuming quotas are proportional to selectees is that there is an implicit assumption that both return rates and rejection rates are uniform across regions if you do that. Whereas they aren't - so eg for a given expected amount of issued visas, you need to select more people from higher rejections/fallout regions than from lower ones. Even if the quota is the same the amount of selectees will be different. And before you all start talking about how Australians have a low rejection rate, you are all referencing OC (not Aus only) selectees, which includes Fiji, which apparently has a high rejection rate.
Sorry Susie, I understand what you're saying, I guess I didn't make clear that I meant from one year to the next for each region. So if OC's return/rejection rate stays relatively constant between DV13 and DV14 wouldn't you then make the assumption that if the percentage of selectees OC makes up went from 2.08% to 3.00%, then the percentage of visas that would go to OC would also rise (and I agree, that wouldn't necessarily then mean exactly 3.00% of all visas for OC).

I can also try to understand though why the quotas/targets for OC and South America may not have changed even though selectees saw a large bump relative to other regions. It could be a new approach by KCC that causes OC and South America to stop going current as often, and bring the frequency of that occurring more in line with that of the other regions. That would ensure that OC and South America's quotas/targets were more likely to be hit from year to year, and it also has an effect on appearances, where it will no longer cause people to think that OC and South America are always assured to go current. A new approach could be a result of new leadership... John Kerry took over Secretary of State on Feb 1 2013, maybe the bump to 140,000 is actually to make the DV more effective at reaching it's 55,000 target.
 

Britsimon

Super Moderator
The problem with assuming quotas are proportional to selectees is that there is an implicit assumption that both return rates and rejection rates are uniform across regions if you do that. Whereas they aren't - so eg for a given expected amount of issued visas, you need to select more people from higher rejections/fallout regions than from lower ones. Even if the quota is the same the amount of selectees will be different. And before you all start talking about how Australians have a low rejection rate, you are all referencing OC (not Aus only) selectees, which includes Fiji, which apparently has a high rejection rate.

My earlier theory about that was that there were two ways of looking at the proportion. If you take OC 2013 to 2014 , the number of selectees doubled. However, as you say that does mean too much in a way because of low response rates etc. so comparing to other regions doesn't make sense. However, OC had an increase of 50% compared against itself. It got 2% of the total selectees one year and 3% the next. That does take rejection rate for the region into account and seemed a clear signal of an increase to me....
 

Britsimon

Super Moderator
Is there a post you might be able to point me to that shows what the regional quotas/targets are for this year?

The actual quotas are not published but there are many posts where people have speculated what they could be. However, you can see through the history of visas issued a sort of split between regions. 2013 for example had 51k visas issued so although we didn't see the absolute limit hit (55k) it was higher than the stated available for the year. So you can take it as ROUGHLY the split...
 

SusieQQQ

Well-Known Member
Thanks for replying. But does anyone actually know what KCC's quotas (or 'targets' for another word) are for each region? If not, then my theory can't be thrown out yet. I don't want people to turn away from this forum (or their hopes) unnecessarily early.

It won't actually be possible to find any correlation for OC because OC has almost always gone current.

Nobody (other than DoS/KCC) ever knows what the quota is, and you can't back it out for past years either - because under-utilized quotas for a particular region are redistributed among the others, and you don't know if or when this has happened either. And as you say, when one or more regions goes current it is even more difficult to try back out what was supposed to have happened...
 

SusieQQQ

Well-Known Member
Sorry Susie, I understand what you're saying, I guess I didn't make clear that I meant from one year to the next for each region. So if OC's return/rejection rate stays relatively constant between DV13 and DV14 wouldn't you then make the assumption that if the percentage of selectees OC makes up went from 2.08% to 3.00%, then the percentage of visas that would go to OC would also rise (and I agree, that wouldn't necessarily then mean exactly 3.00% of all visas for OC).

.... A new approach could be a result of new leadership... John Kerry took over Secretary of State on Feb 1 2013, maybe the bump to 140,000 is actually to make the DV more effective at reaching it's 55,000 target.

If you could assume the region constant, yes...but I seem to recall there have been some sharp fluctuations in the number of visas issued to Fiji from one year to the next, which seems to belie that assumption.

We've been assuming the jump in 2014 selectees was because they used the 2012 returns. This would also fit with why the number of selectees fell again in 2015.
 

SusieQQQ

Well-Known Member
My earlier theory about that was that there were two ways of looking at the proportion. If you take OC 2013 to 2014 , the number of selectees doubled. However, as you say that does mean too much in a way because of low response rates etc. so comparing to other regions doesn't make sense. However, OC had an increase of 50% compared against itself. It got 2% of the total selectees one year and 3% the next. That does take rejection rate for the region into account and seemed a clear signal of an increase to me....

I see what you're saying re 50% against itself. But the other way of looking at it is that 1% of selectees difference may not be much more than a rounding error in the overall numbers...
 

franko

Well-Known Member
My earlier theory about that was that there were two ways of looking at the proportion. If you take OC 2013 to 2014 , the number of selectees doubled. However, as you say that does mean too much in a way because of low response rates etc. so comparing to other regions doesn't make sense. However, OC had an increase of 50% compared against itself. It got 2% of the total selectees one year and 3% the next. That does take rejection rate for the region into account and seemed a clear signal of an increase to me....


The main issue here is that you (as many previously have ) are trying to apply logic and common sense to what KCC/DOS have been and are doing :D
 

Mijoro

Well-Known Member
I wonder if there will be any changes this week, not that I am expecting it to jump to my number but I would be happy if it jumped to at least 1600
 

connectedspace

Active Member
I wonder if there will be any changes this week, not that I am expecting it to jump to my number but I would be happy if it jumped to at least 1600

I'm hoping for higher, maybe 2000. But the cynic in me says that if it jumps, it'll be to about 1600. Maybe 1700. A cutoff of 1450 out of 4215 selectees -- just over a third -- is utterly woeful. Bearing in mind that EU is north of 40000 out of about 46000 selectees. Perhaps oceanians are very good at ticking visa boxes. Or maybe they have enormous families. God knows.
 

franko

Well-Known Member
I'm hoping for higher, maybe 2000. But the cynic in me says that if it jumps, it'll be to about 1600. Maybe 1700. A cutoff of 1450 out of 4215 selectees -- just over a third -- is utterly woeful. Bearing in mind that EU is north of 40000 out of about 46000 selectees. Perhaps oceanians are very good at ticking visa boxes. Or maybe they have enormous families. God knows.


It's 400000 CN and 46000 selected with CNs up to 55k I believe, so I think you meant that EU is north of 40000 out of 56000 CNs :)
 
Last edited:

typo

Registered Users (C)
Thanks for all the great responses, I totally follow.

So then, because it appears we don't know whether the quotas/targets for OC and South America have or have not changed this year, it's still plausible to make stupendously simplistic calculations like this:
  • OC 2013: 2.08% of selectees. With a target of 50,000 visas, OC's target could have been 1,040. (So that's why we were current with 731 visas issued)
  • OC2014: 3.00% of selectees. Same 50,000 target, so OC target of 1,500.
I don't know what case number 1,500 visas might bring us to, somebody please tell me it's above my 19XX.

Long story short, I'm probably not going to give up hope until about mid-August, when the Sep bulletin has come out and some time has passed for possible adjustments to also be applied to that one. #stubborn
 

typo

Registered Users (C)
Thanks for all the great responses, I totally follow.

So then, because it appears we don't know whether the quotas/targets for OC and South America have or have not changed this year, it's still plausible to make stupendously simplistic calculations like this:
  • OC 2013: 2.08% of selectees. With a target of 50,000 visas, OC's target could have been 1,040. (So that's why we were current with 731 visas issued)
  • OC2014: 3.00% of selectees. Same 50,000 target, so OC target of 1,500.
I don't know what case number 1,500 visas might bring us to, somebody please tell me it's above my 19XX.

Long story short, I'm probably not going to give up hope until about mid-August, when the Sep bulletin has come out and some time has passed for possible adjustments to also be applied to that one. #stubborn
Maybe someone can tell me if the above is ludicrous by looking at all regions in DV2014 like this...

The following is what proportion of selectees each region makes up, and then what that implies (only according to me) about the amount of visas they should be issued based on a target of 50,000:
  • Africa 44.04% -> visa target 22,020
  • Asia 16.54% -> visa target 8,270
  • Europe 33.12% -> visa target 16,560
  • North America 0.02% -> visa target 10
  • OC 3.00% -> visa target 1,500
  • South America 3.28% -> visa target 1,640
Can anyone tell me if the current progress of visas for regions aside from OC and South America tracks this at all?
 

Britsimon

Super Moderator
I'm hoping for higher, maybe 2000. But the cynic in me says that if it jumps, it'll be to about 1600. Maybe 1700. A cutoff of 1450 out of 4215 selectees -- just over a third -- is utterly woeful. Bearing in mind that EU is north of 40000 out of about 46000 selectees. Perhaps oceanians are very good at ticking visa boxes. Or maybe they have enormous families. God knows.

You are confusing CN s with selectees. In 2014 the max CN was about 3000 ish. The principal selectees gets a case number, not the family and the family are included in the 4200 figure.
 

Britsimon

Super Moderator
Maybe someone can tell me if the above is ludicrous by looking at all regions in DV2014 like this...

The following is what proportion of selectees each region makes up, and then what that implies (only according to me) about the amount of visas they should be issued based on a target of 50,000:
  • Africa 44.04% -> visa target 22,020
  • Asia 16.54% -> visa target 8,270
  • Europe 33.12% -> visa target 16,560
  • North America 0.02% -> visa target 10
  • OC 3.00% -> visa target 1,500
  • South America 3.28% -> visa target 1,640
Can anyone tell me if the current progress of visas for regions aside from OC and South America tracks this at all?

I did that same calculation earlier this year (or late last year) it seems logical and I summed it up saying the selectees count signaled the eventual quota. However, KCC didn't agree with that logic and then did their own slow pace on OC - making it clear they were not shooting for 1500.

By the way, my calculations showed 1500 would make OC current - enough for everyone. Clearly not going to happen.
 

typo

Registered Users (C)
I did that same calculation earlier this year (or late last year) it seems logical and I summed it up saying the selectees count signaled the eventual quota. However, KCC didn't agree with that logic and then did their own slow pace on OC - making it clear they were not shooting for 1500.

By the way, my calculations showed 1500 would make OC current - enough for everyone. Clearly not going to happen.
Yeah I like the sound of your second paragraph, I'm also sadly with your thinking that OC won't go current. Do you know though if Africa, Asia and Europe are on track to those figures? If it appears they are going to greatly exceed those numbers then yeah OC and SA should be worried, otherwise we're still all-systems-go in my mind.
 
Top