CEAC data update

[EURO2014]

Yes I do, that's what my estimate would suggest. Depending how you calculate max/min ranges, you and most other folks below 40K should still be save and good to go. Thing is, nobody can really be sure about DV final for September until VB September will come out on or around July 9th.

 

[Annanz]

Yes I do, that's what my estimate would suggest. Depending how you calculate max/min ranges, you and most other folks below 40K should still be save and good to go. Thing is, nobody can really be sure about DV final for September until VB September will come out on or around July 9th.

Wow, so for my EU39100, what do you predict sir?

 

[EURO2014]

Wow, so for my EU39100, what do you predict sir?

Hi Annanz, unfortunately I can't tell you more than I wrote above: calculating min/max ranges as predicted, final range would come out anywhere between EU38,700 and EU40,200, right? Please remember though, that this is my personal estimate, don't read more into it than intended. Good luck to you!

 

[Annanz]

Hi Annanz, unfortunately I can't tell you more than I wrote above: calculating min/max ranges as predicted, final range would come out anywhere between EU38,700 and EU40,200, right? Please remember though, that this is my personal estimate, don't read more into it than intended. Good luck to you!

Thanks for the prompt reply Euro. You're a very smart guy.

 

[EURO2014]

Thanks for the prompt reply Euro. You're a very smart guy.

Not so sure about that

 

[n.n.]

Personal Estimate EU = 2,500 - 3,500 August, possibly 500 - 1,000 for September, if this makes any sense...

In my opinion, this makes sense only if Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Poland, Bulgaria and Greece will catch-up and there will be no backlog. Otherwise my prediction is that final CN will be 42,000 or above if KCC intends to issue at least the same amount of visas this year as it did in 2014.

 

[bici]

In my opinion, this makes sense only if Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Poland, Bulgaria and Greece will catch-up and there will be no backlog. Otherwise my prediction is that final CN will be 42,000 or above if KCC intends to issue at least the same amount of visas this year as it did in 2014.

Agreed. But I guess you wanted to mean "there will be some backlog" and not (there will be no backlog). Right?

 

[n.n.]

Agreed. But I guess you wanted to mean "there will be some backlog" and not (there will be no backlog). Right?

If backlog is cleared, then CN will be within 40k. If UU have other type of problems than delays in DS260 (like problem with dvlottery agents), then UU will not receive as many visas as in dv2014 and their visas will be added to high CN owners in case the total number of visas issued in 2015 stays at least the same as in 2014.

 

[bici]

If backlog is cleared, then CN will be within 40k. If UU have other type of problems than delays in DS260 (like problem with dvlottery agents), then UU will not receive as many visas as in dv2014 and their visas will be added to high CN owners in case the total number of visas issued in 2015 stays at least the same as in 2014.

I do not get it. If Backlog is cleared, then it should all be the newer and actually the higher CNs. Why should it squeeze within 40K if all backlog is cleared? Should not it be more and more higher CN? Or is it again a language thing in btw us?

 

[n.n.]

I do not get it. If Backlog is cleared, then it should all be the newer and actually the higher CNs. Why should it squeeze within 40K if all backlog is cleared? Should not it be more and more higher CN? Or is it again a language thing in btw us?

Yes, language thing We are talking about the same. English is not my native language and sorry for mistakes

 

[Britsimon]

If backlog is cleared, then CN will be within 40k. If UU have other type of problems than delays in DS260 (like problem with dvlottery agents), then UU will not receive as many visas as in dv2014 and their visas will be added to high CN owners in case the total number of visas issued in 2015 stays at least the same as in 2014.

I think you see the case numbers as equal between DV2014 and DV2015 - meaning 40150 in DV2014 is the same as 40150 in DV2015. That is not correct.

I'm also a little unsure that you grasp the backlog issue. The backlog will continue to the very end meaning that some of the September interview slots will go to cases that were current prior to September. That is for sure. THe question is, how many.

The backlog is not (in my opinion) the reason for U2 low numbers - I think that is more to do with agents.

 

[n.n.]

I think you see the case numbers as equal between DV2014 and DV2015 - meaning 40150 in DV2014 is the same as 40150 in DV2015. That is not correct.

I'm also a little unsure that you grasp the backlog issue. The backlog will continue to the very end meaning that some of the September interview slots will go to cases that were current prior to September. That is for sure. THe question is, how many.

The backlog is not (in my opinion) the reason for U2 low numbers - I think that is more to do with agents.

I understand that the density is different in DV2014 and DV2015. But I think that if UU have problems with agents, then RR will be lower than in DV2014 and this will have bigger impact than density increase. Currently, comparing to previous year there are around 1,600 less members invited to CO from UU. Either this problem gets fixed and then your calculations will be correct and we will have cut-off less than 40,000 or if the problem is not with DS260 but with UU agents, then these 1,600 members will be added on top of 40,000 and this makes about 1,600 * 2.5 = 4,000 numbers.

I think that it will be both. There will be certain increase in UU but not 1,600. That is why my estimates are 42,000 for EU.

I think while calculating your cut-offs you could not predict problems with UU if there are any of course.

This is a speculation of course, but I am curious why there is such a big difference by countries. If KCC or winners have problems with new DS forms, I suppose that the problem should be similar for all countries in the region.

 

[Britsimon]

I understand that the density is different in DV2014 and DV2015. But I think that if UU have problems with agents, then RR will be lower than in DV2014 and this will have bigger impact than density increase. Currently, comparing to previous year there are around 1,600 less members invited to CO from UU. Either this problem gets fixed and then your calculations will be correct and we will have cut-off less than 40,000 or if the problem is not with DS260 but with UU agents, then these 1,600 members will be added on top of 40,000 and this makes about 1,600 * 2.5 = 4,000 numbers.

I think that it will be both. There will be certain increase in UU but not 1,600. That is why my estimates are 42,000 for EU.

I think while calculating your cut-offs you could not predict problems with UU if there are any of course.

This is a speculation of course, but I am curious why there is such a big difference by countries. If KCC or winners have problems with new DS forms, I suppose that the problem should be similar for all countries in the region.

Just to be clear - I have never said that EU cannot go over 40k. What I speculated in January was a cutoff for EU in the range of 38XXX to 41XXX - I have never varied that, but I have pointed out that the gap between 41XXX (41999) and 45006 is very small - so I have pointed out many times that EU is the "closest" to being able to go current. However, with the progress to date and derivative growth, I think current has become less and less likely.

 

[n.n.]

Just to be clear - I have never said that EU cannot go over 40k. What I speculated in January was a cutoff for EU in the range of 38XXX to 41XXX - I have never varied that, but I have pointed out that the gap between 41XXX (41999) and 45006 is very small - so I have pointed out many times that EU is the "closest" to being able to go current. However, with the progress to date and derivative growth, I think current has become less and less likely.

Thanks for the clarification. My mistake.

 

[bici]

Just to be clear - I have never said that EU cannot go over 40k. What I speculated in January was a cutoff for EU in the range of 38XXX to 41XXX - I have never varied that, but I have pointed out that the gap between 41XXX (41999) and 45006 is very small - so I have pointed out many times that EU is the "closest" to being able to go current. However, with the progress to date and derivative growth, I think current has become less and less likely.

From where did you get the impression that the gap between those numbers is very small Brit? We knew that the density was stable at 350-400/1K till the end. Also what did you mean by derivative growth? I guess, you meant the current mean derivative rate. Is that right?

 

[bici]

I understand that the density is different in DV2014 and DV2015. But I think that if UU have problems with agents, then RR will be lower than in DV2014 and this will have bigger impact than density increase. Currently, comparing to previous year there are around 1,600 less members invited to CO from UU. Either this problem gets fixed and then your calculations will be correct and we will have cut-off less than 40,000 or if the problem is not with DS260 but with UU agents, then these 1,600 members will be added on top of 40,000 and this makes about 1,600 * 2.5 = 4,000 numbers.

I think that it will be both. There will be certain increase in UU but not 1,600. That is why my estimates are 42,000 for EU.

I think while calculating your cut-offs you could not predict problems with UU if there are any of course.

This is a speculation of course, but I am curious why there is such a big difference by countries. If KCC or winners have problems with new DS forms, I suppose that the problem should be similar for all countries in the region.

Good points bro. Keep up the good work. I never thought that language was even an issue on your side but actually mine.

 

[Britsimon]

From where did you get the impression that the gap between those numbers is very small Brit? We knew that the density was stable at 350-400/1K till the end. Also what did you mean by derivative growth? I guess, you meant the current mean derivative rate. Is that right?

It isn't an impression - it's a fact. There are 1113 cases between 42000 and 45006. Considering about half of them won't respond we are talking about 600 cases. I'd call that a small gap.

I did mean derivative growth. We know that there were 46000 selectees for EU and we know there were 21958 cases - so the selectee+derivative rate was about 2.09 people for each case for EU. Now though of the 7904 cases scheduled there are 17776 family members (selectee + derivative) - 2.25 people per case. That difference is derivative "growth" (post entry marriages, babies and so on). Given that is 1200 people extra in the 17776 scheduled, that will mean at least 1000 additional visas will be issued to people that weren't even in the original 46000 (and remember these are cases that have responded so it is like the 46k became 50k). That is not insignificant when trying to do estimates.

The derivative growth in AF region is even more pronounced.

 

[n.n.]

It isn't an impression - it's a fact. There are 1113 cases between 42000 and 45006. Considering about half of them won't respond we are talking about 600 cases. I'd call that a small gap.

I did mean derivative growth. We know that there were 46000 selectees for EU and we know there were 21958 cases - so the selectee+derivative rate was about 2.09 people for each case for EU. Now though of the 7904 cases scheduled there are 17776 family members (selectee + derivative) - 2.25 people per case. That difference is derivative "growth" (post entry marriages, babies and so on). Given that is 1200 people extra in the 17776 scheduled, that will mean at least 1000 additional visas will be issued to people that weren't even in the original 46000 (and remember these are cases that have responded so it is like the 46k became 50k). That is not insignificant when trying to do estimates.

The derivative growth in AF region is even more pronounced.

The density has increased, it's correct, but I think that there is some small mistake in your calculations. You are comparing different data.
You are comparing total cases of dv2014 wih only invited to co ones in 2015. It would be more correct to take final ceac for 2014 and compare invited family members to CN count in both cases.

Then it makes 24,570 (family members) / 11,064 = 2.22 (data taken from final dv 2014 ceac)

So yes, there is a density increase, but it is from 2.22 to 2.25 but not from 2.09 to 2.25 as you mention imho.

 

[bici]

It isn't an impression - it's a fact. There are 1113 cases between 42000 and 45006. Considering about half of them won't respond we are talking about 600 cases. I'd call that a small gap.

I did mean derivative growth. We know that there were 46000 selectees for EU and we know there were 21958 cases - so the selectee+derivative rate was about 2.09 people for each case for EU. Now though of the 7904 cases scheduled there are 17776 family members (selectee + derivative) - 2.25 people per case. That difference is derivative "growth" (post entry marriages, babies and so on). Given that is 1200 people extra in the 17776 scheduled, that will mean at least 1000 additional visas will be issued to people that weren't even in the original 46000 (and remember these are cases that have responded so it is like the 46k became 50k). That is not insignificant when trying to do estimates.

The derivative growth in AF region is even more pronounced.

I understand what you are saying Simon.
I have some questions though.
So, between 42000 and 45006, there are 1113 cases. That roughly makes a little less than 400/1K . So how this density is any different than any range after the CN35700. I am thinking that they are all the same.
You said 46000 selectees for EU. Did you mean 45006 as we all know that the last EU number is 45006- so far.
Derivate growth. I see your points, which are actually the facts. But, are not those leveled off by no responses, no shows, refusals, APs etc. So, it exists but is it that much an issue to worry about?

 

[Sensei-san]

The density has increased, it's correct, but I think that there is some small mistake in your calculations. You are comparing different data.
You are comparing total cases of dv2014 wih only invited to co ones in 2015. It would be more correct to take final ceac for 2014 and compare invited family members to CN count in both cases.

Then it makes 24,570 (family members) / 11,064 = 2.22 (data taken from final dv 2014 ceac)

So yes, there is a density increase, but it is from 2.22 to 2.25 but not from 2.09 to 2.25 as you mention imho.

He is not comparing it to DV2014 in his post. He is illustrating how actual derivative rate grew so far this year from the nominal data of selectees and cases.