• 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.

CEAC Data Up to 02-02-2014

Hi Simon,
Thanks for that mental image; let me assure you it is not 'amateur'!
Let's see if we have enough fuel for another take-off.

Yes the math do work; to comply with all requirements what you have to do is follow the rules on calculating the region allocation strictly on population basis ... and automatically a greater share of visa numbers will go to regions that had low admission rates.

I fear this is not quite the result you were seeking. Forgive me if my 'mental image' of you is a kindly person seeking good outcomes for the most in the gentlest possible way; it is not a bad image. But when confronted by 'not so good outcomes' you push back. Take your strongly held position that you quote above: 'The point is - this is a diversity lottery program. They specifically set out their target to get immigrants from low admission regions.' All the document actually says is: 'A greater share of the available visa numbers goes to low admission regions.' And we now know that such a simple modest objective is attained by following the specified mathematical process based on population - and we remember the word 'must'. Having more than passing experience with US Governmental process and legal action, we know that federal bureaucrats seek defendable certainty when taking action; vague 'targets' are rarely defendable - hard formulas usually are.

But let me leave it at that; you do a power of good on this forum and your recent advice to that young new Australian was spot-on.

Best,
 
CollingwoodRuck said:
Hi Simon,
Thanks for that mental image; let me assure you it is not 'amateur'!
Let's see if we have enough fuel for another take-off.

Yes the math do work; to comply with all requirements what you have to do is follow the rules on calculating the region allocation strictly on population basis ... and automatically a greater share of visa numbers will go to regions that had low admission rates.

I fear this is not quite the result you were seeking. Forgive me if my 'mental image' of you is a kindly person seeking good outcomes for the most in the gentlest possible way; it is not a bad image. But when confronted by 'not so good outcomes' you push back. Take your strongly held position that you quote above: 'The point is - this is a diversity lottery program. They specifically set out their target to get immigrants from low admission regions.' All the document actually says is: 'A greater share of the available visa numbers goes to low admission regions.' And we now know that such a simple modest objective is attained by following the specified mathematical process based on population - and we remember the word 'must'. Having more than passing experience with US Governmental process and legal action, we know that federal bureaucrats seek defendable certainty when taking action; vague 'targets' are rarely defendable - hard formulas usually are.

But let me leave it at that; you do a power of good on this forum and your recent advice to that young new Australian was spot-on.

Best,
Click to expand...

Believe me, we could argue all day and I would not take offence (assuming no offence was meant) - I am a big boy - as I am sure you are also.

I am naturally optimistic, yes - but not to the point where I am blind, so I am not pushing back because your version upsets me, I just don't think the process is driven in the way you do. As I said earlier, I probably shouldn't have said that population has NOTHING to do with it - but what is clear to me is that the lottery is not divided or governed based on population.

What is also crystal clear to me is that there is a direct correlation between the selectee splits and the eventual visas issued (accepting the different return and success rates). So - they increased OC selectees to 3% this year - that is without doubt. Do you really think that is not significant?
 
Hi Simon,
Things here are a little subdued; not just on this blog. The implications of the April 900 for OCDV2014 are sinking in – like, the initial six monthly jumps (neglecting the Oct set at 300) have averaged 100pm; even if that is now doubled to 200pm for the remaining five, the landing will just hit 1900. To put that in perspective, in the past five years, OC has seen only two 200 jumps (and one of 300) – always in the first quarter. The five final months include the winter ones with the highest absenteeism rate; a great time to double the consulate workload, I don’t think! But we will all continue to think that anything is possible.

You left me with several open questions. Let me answer them by summarising where we have ‘agreed to disagree’. My starting position is to credit the two of us with having developed competing theories for OC (and, collaterally) SA. To me, it seems that both theories are internally self-consistent and that their believers can honestly say that they accommodate the tortured data. William of Ockham would be satisfied; particularly as both predict the future – albeit with varying outcomes. The situation reminds of electromagnetism’s early days - two of the most brilliant men of their age (Maxwell and Weber) developed competing self-consistent theories; only the passage of time resolved it. So descending from that exalted position, let’s call your position Theory B – and mine Theory C. And let me document their logical development.

Theory C’s starting axiom is that Regional quotas are established based on adjusted population as stipulated in the FAM which would put OC at 1.5% and SA at 3% (approx.) Theory B has no inherent need to address the basis of calculation – but believes that the one just deduced is incorrect.

Theory B’s starting axiom is that Regional quotas are evidenced by the ratios of selectees which would put both OC and SA at 2%. Theory C regards such ratios as Order of Magnitude indicators.

There are common starting data. DV2014 has seen a huge jump in selectee numbers; a 50% increase over DV2013; in OC and SA about 100%. Theory B sees the OC/SA jump as supporting the 2% position. Theory C sees the overkill as a yearning to make the processes run more smoothly – avoiding such issues as shuffling regional quotas; the larger jump for the two southern regions is simply a reflection of the statistical difficulties of managing smaller numbers.

Then there is the CEAC data set. Theory C has used this to calculate the run rate for the first six months and has concluded that OC has consistently paced at a steady 1.5% and SA at 3%. Theory B notes that run rates can differ between regions; data validity is also questioned.

Finally there is the VB data. Theory C is consistent with progress of OC at 1.5% and SA 3%. [This dressing is up a bit – OC should be at 950/1000.] Theory B probably sees SA as a little over track but OC as ‘horribly’ behind – a feeling like being trapped in a Beckett play!

Theory C’s key weakness is that is only applicable to OC/SA. Theory B’s key weakness is that it believes that the huge SA region (over 130m eligible candidates) will receive a similar allocation as tiny OC (37m). Obviously, both theories could be wrong.

Time will tell!

Let me make a final disclosure. I hope and dearly wish that your Theory B triumphs; it is much more optimistic in outlook and its outcome would be much more positive for nice people whom I have become acquainted with. My Theory C is an honest classic Econometric 201 analysis of the data, and nothing more – and this particular output from the ‘Dismal Science’ is truly dismal. I would like to toss it in the thrash; but that would be intellectually dishonest.


PS Best of luck for your removal! Have moved household to/from the US several times and always went well! Although can recall a touch of stress at the time.
 
the most correct of all till now in this forum is britsimon.... there is nothing to do with what so ever cases found in any region....its only that KCC was mistaken by assuming the 2012 data while the 2014 DV was drawn and consequences are clearly seen in this 7 months.. there will not be any magic tricks like as sloner says and what so ever his theory says.....the fact is this year is pretty similar to that of 2013 so if u want to count your chances see 2013 data...



all 140K people cannot be fitted in 55000 visa(if also nacara visa is used)
 
Сan. This is not fiction. This is a very real event.
I do not see anything to do with 2013. :) It differs.
I gave a box of apples, half rotted. But they were 140,000.
 
In a body u are heart while britsimon is mind... so as always heart never says i will not get chance.... i wish god to make u true and simon wrong even simon will join to pray together... i could have believed u have any signs were seen of such sloner axiom till now... its late dude really late... u are wrong man u accept defeat... this year it is no more different from 2013.... simon is damm correct with his theory...
Sloner said:
Сan. This is not fiction. This is a very real event.
I do not see anything to do with 2013. :) It differs.
I gave a box of apples, half rotted. But they were 140,000.
Click to expand...
 
CollingwoodRuck said:
Hi Simon,
Things here are a little subdued; not just on this blog. The implications of the April 900 for OCDV2014 are sinking in – like, the initial six monthly jumps (neglecting the Oct set at 300) have averaged 100pm; even if that is now doubled to 200pm for the remaining five, the landing will just hit 1900. To put that in perspective, in the past five years, OC has seen only two 200 jumps (and one of 300) – always in the first quarter. The five final months include the winter ones with the highest absenteeism rate; a great time to double the consulate workload, I don’t think! But we will all continue to think that anything is possible.

You left me with several open questions. Let me answer them by summarising where we have ‘agreed to disagree’. My starting position is to credit the two of us with having developed competing theories for OC (and, collaterally) SA. To me, it seems that both theories are internally self-consistent and that their believers can honestly say that they accommodate the tortured data. William of Ockham would be satisfied; particularly as both predict the future – albeit with varying outcomes. The situation reminds of electromagnetism’s early days - two of the most brilliant men of their age (Maxwell and Weber) developed competing self-consistent theories; only the passage of time resolved it. So descending from that exalted position, let’s call your position Theory B – and mine Theory C. And let me document their logical development.

Theory C’s starting axiom is that Regional quotas are established based on adjusted population as stipulated in the FAM which would put OC at 1.5% and SA at 3% (approx.) Theory B has no inherent need to address the basis of calculation – but believes that the one just deduced is incorrect.

Theory B’s starting axiom is that Regional quotas are evidenced by the ratios of selectees which would put both OC and SA at 2%. Theory C regards such ratios as Order of Magnitude indicators.

There are common starting data. DV2014 has seen a huge jump in selectee numbers; a 50% increase over DV2013; in OC and SA about 100%. Theory B sees the OC/SA jump as supporting the 2% position. Theory C sees the overkill as a yearning to make the processes run more smoothly – avoiding such issues as shuffling regional quotas; the larger jump for the two southern regions is simply a reflection of the statistical difficulties of managing smaller numbers.

Then there is the CEAC data set. Theory C has used this to calculate the run rate for the first six months and has concluded that OC has consistently paced at a steady 1.5% and SA at 3%. Theory B notes that run rates can differ between regions; data validity is also questioned.

Finally there is the VB data. Theory C is consistent with progress of OC at 1.5% and SA 3%. [This dressing is up a bit – OC should be at 950/1000.] Theory B probably sees SA as a little over track but OC as ‘horribly’ behind – a feeling like being trapped in a Beckett play!

Theory C’s key weakness is that is only applicable to OC/SA. Theory B’s key weakness is that it believes that the huge SA region (over 130m eligible candidates) will receive a similar allocation as tiny OC (37m). Obviously, both theories could be wrong.

Time will tell!

Let me make a final disclosure. I hope and dearly wish that your Theory B triumphs; it is much more optimistic in outlook and its outcome would be much more positive for nice people whom I have become acquainted with. My Theory C is an honest classic Econometric 201 analysis of the data, and nothing more – and this particular output from the ‘Dismal Science’ is truly dismal. I would like to toss it in the thrash; but that would be intellectually dishonest.


PS Best of luck for your removal! Have moved household to/from the US several times and always went well! Although can recall a touch of stress at the time.
Click to expand...


That is a pretty well stated recap of our positions - thanks for that.

Just for the record I do think SA will take more visas than OC - I just don't think it will be the split you think (or that it will be tfor the reason of population). SA have more selectees this year than OC and tend to have a better selectee/visas issued rate (mainly, I believe because of the relative desire to make the move).


200920102011201220132014
OC selectees??1598200121934215
SA selectees??2001200222064620
OC visas/demand for 20146056395785627311405
SA visas/demand for 201478210089787429381964
OC success rate %----36.1728.0933.33?
SA success rate %----48.8837.0642.52?

In the table I have calculated the demand for 2014 visas based on the 2013 success rate. In the end these numbers will probably not be reached because the global limit (or regional quota) will kick in. But I think it is useful to see the demand based on full amount of selectees. I think the history is illustrating that 1000 SA selectees will yield more visas than 1000 OC selectees. The history also shows that the 1:2 percent ratio hasn't been seen at least in the last 5 years.

By the way, history also shows that the lions share of the SA region visas has gone to Venezuela and that one country has seen a huge increase in its share of the SA region as a whole over the last few years - again NOT to do with population increase - all to do with desire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, some interesting numbers there.

I understand and agree the impact on SA’s conversion rates from the intense desire of Cubans and Venezuelans for a better life. A similar impact occurs with Fiji in OC (though not of the same magnitude) where the disenfranchised majority’s diaspora is continuing. In all cases, these three (relatively small) countries have a much larger impact on the internal regional numbers. But, as that video you sent me says, Regional numbers are initially set at a fixed quota. Then, the internal allocation of the region is a random draw across the whole region; which means the internal distribution effectively reflects the proportion of applications from each country – regardless of population. As those two countries dominate SA, it ‘drives up’ your calculated success rate; Fiji merely ‘props up’ the OC one.

I also agree that OC will not see 1405 visas – if only!

Just on a new (but related) issue – where we will again disagree. I think the ‘overdraw’ in 2014, far from being ‘unintended/ error/misunderstanding’, is a cold deliberate strategy to manage the process more purposefully – specifically to take pressure off interviewing consulates. Now this is only an incomplete hypothesis – so I cannot defend it. But I can certainly see advantages to consulates in having had it happen. Again, let me leave it, by saying ‘time will tell’ – certainly DV2015’s numbers will!
 
CollingwoodRuck said:
Yes, some interesting numbers there.

I understand and agree the impact on SA’s conversion rates from the intense desire of Cubans and Venezuelans for a better life. A similar impact occurs with Fiji in OC (though not of the same magnitude) where the disenfranchised majority’s diaspora is continuing. In all cases, these three (relatively small) countries have a much larger impact on the internal regional numbers. But, as that video you sent me says, Regional numbers are initially set at a fixed quota. Then, the internal allocation of the region is a random draw across the whole region; which means the internal distribution effectively reflects the proportion of applications from each country – regardless of population. As those two countries dominate SA, it ‘drives up’ your calculated success rate; Fiji merely ‘props up’ the OC one.

I also agree that OC will not see 1405 visas – if only!

Just on a new (but related) issue – where we will again disagree. I think the ‘overdraw’ in 2014, far from being ‘unintended/ error/misunderstanding’, is a cold deliberate strategy to manage the process more purposefully – specifically to take pressure off interviewing consulates. Now this is only an incomplete hypothesis – so I cannot defend it. But I can certainly see advantages to consulates in having had it happen. Again, let me leave it, by saying ‘time will tell’ – certainly DV2015’s numbers will!
Click to expand...


I have calculated and published numbers previously using country specific success rate calculations - that does vary things from the regional ones I used above - the difference isn't that significant.

Agreed on DV2015. If my theory holds true I can't see any reason why DV2015 would need a selectee number similar to this year. So - if we see 140k again - I will eat my hat.

There is a major change in that Nigeria is ineligible this year - I'm not sure how that will affect things although as they are over 15% of the entrants globally it is bound to cause some differences (at least in Africa region).
 
ullc said:
Hi there rafikbo76,
Is this documnet self-updating or not? I mean will it show EU numbers for April?
Click to expand...

Sorry my friend,
it's not

Data are extracted from ceac website by querying case by case, 2014AF1, 2014AF2 and so on. we need to run it again next month.
 
rafikbo76 said:
Sorry my friend,
it's not

Data are extracted from ceac website by querying case by case, 2014AF1, 2014AF2 and so on. we need to run it again next month.
Click to expand...


It will be good to compare the changes month to month on previous months. There are several people doing estimates on the historical data but the historical data is changing - so it would be useful to see the growth of visas issued for lower CN ranges.
 
britsimon said:
It will be good to compare the changes month to month on previous months. There are several people doing estimates on the historical data but the historical data is changing - so it would be useful to see the growth of visas issued for lower CN ranges.
Click to expand...

I ran it for first thousand AF region, sure there were changes,

and till yesterday April cases wasn't included (250 cases all holes)

I think once a month is good schedule
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top