• 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.

Choosing the legibility country (Ukraine or Moldova - whats best?)

Anyway, I am pretty sure Wolfsdorf is right about what the law says. Also, I am pretty sure most of consuls know the rule, and the question seldomly arises if any. And in case it actually arises you could say a number of different things. Mention Matter of Chatterton, mention Wolfsdorf's article or mention what Simon suggested.
 
britsimon said:
Yes you are wrong in your assumptions.

There is a country cap of 7% of the total global visas - that means no country can receive more than 3500 visas in any one year. However, to get that many visas a country would need something like > 10k selectees. So - even with the 6k Ukraine has this year I doubt they will hit the 7% cap.

There is no other cap per country. The "quota" is set per region (so both your countries are within EU). The chances of winning (being selected) do vary by region but not by country. Case numbers are allocated by region, not country.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong but I think countries do have selectees cap. Take a look at Bangladeshi for instance... the last time it was eligible, it had almost half the entries (7 millions) and only 6000 got selected.. And looking at stats, the 6-7000 marks seems to be the limit per countries
 
I could also suspect some countries are capped. I could suspect Bangladesh was capped every year in recent years when it participated. However, since we have CEAC system in place (starting DV-13) we know for sure what countries are capped on the stage of selection. Bangladesh did not participate in DV-13
 
Bangladesh isn't a good example because the high fraud levels meaning massive disqualifications.

According to Testimony of Stephen A. Edson Before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement Hearing on the Diversity Visa Program[10] "In Bangladesh, for example, one agent is reported to have enrolled an entire phone book so that he could then either extort money from winning applicants who had never entered the program to begin with or sell their winning slots to others"
 
Yes, Simon, I agree. It is possible that Bangladesh achieved low selection rate without being capped.
However, I think the things are related. I think higher fraud level in some countries could be the reason why they are capped.
In DV-13, for instance, in the following list of countries:

Ukraine 6,424
Nigeria 6,218
Iran 6,029
Ghana 5,105
Uzbekistan 5,101
Egypt 5,015
Ethiopia 4,910


Iran is not the highest in terms of the number of winners, but is rather high in terms of frequency of wins (low fraud level). It is also the only country in this list that is not capped.

All other countries participating in DV-13 have less winners than Ethiopia.

So, I think, countries are capped when they have both high level of fraud and at least 4500 winners, one of those two conditions is not enough.
 
raevsky said:
Yes, Simon, I agree. It is possible that Bangladesh achieved low selection rate without being capped.
However, I think the things are related. I think higher fraud level in some countries could be the reason why they are capped.
In DV-13, for instance, in the following list of countries:

Ukraine 6,424
Nigeria 6,218
Iran 6,029
Ghana 5,105
Uzbekistan 5,101
Egypt 5,015
Ethiopia 4,910


Iran is not the highest in terms of the number of winners, but is rather high in terms of frequency of wins (low fraud level). It is also the only country in this list that is not capped.

All other countries participating in DV-13 have less winners than Ethiopia.

So, I think, countries are capped when they have both high level of fraud and at least 4500 winners, one of those two conditions is not enough.
Click to expand...

That all makes sense...
 
Hi

Hi gents,

I want to apply through the DV-2015 but I am confused about the following questions:

5 - Country Where You Were Born: (KSA - in my case)

6 - Country of Eligibility for the DV Program: (????)

Yes: ??

No: ??

In my Case, I was born in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) but I hold Jordanian Nationality (Jordan), so how should I fill Question No. 6 exactly.

Appreciate your quick response.

Regards,

Sab
 
silentmoon80 said:
Hi gents,

I want to apply through the DV-2015 but I am confused about the following questions:

5 - Country Where You Were Born: (KSA - in my case)

6 - Country of Eligibility for the DV Program: (????)

Yes: ??

No: ??

In my Case, I was born in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) but I hold Jordanian Nationality (Jordan), so how should I fill Question No. 6 exactly.

Appreciate your quick response.

Regards,

Sab
Click to expand...

KSA. Your current nationality is not relevant. Eligibility is based on your country of birth.
 
Hi

britsimon said:
KSA. Your current nationality is not relevant. Eligibility is based on your country of birth.
Click to expand...

You mean that my answers should be as follows:

5 - Country Where You Were Born: KSA

6 - Country of Eligibility for the DV Program: KSA

No: (I choose No and refer to Jordan or Choose Yes and that's it)
 
She selects Egypt.
If you want to have much better chances of being a winner, you select Egypt on your entry as well (in p.6, using a different chargeability from your country of birth), instead of KSA.
 
Actually, Egypt is a special country in Africa. I do not have exact numbers for Egypt yet, but is'chances are much lower than for the rest of Africa. So, it still might be better for both of you to play from KSA, not Egypt, even though it is much better to play from, for instance, South Africa, than from KSA. I think I'll know the exact number for Egypt in DV-13 tomorrow.
 
I see there are special entries on the form for Gaza and West Bank (but, surprisingly, not for East Jerusalem or Golan Heights). So, she selects Gaza Strip in p.5.
But Gaza Strip is chargeable to Egypt, and the chances to win are the same as for Egypt
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@raevsky , @Britsimon

Sorry Gentlemen,

Is the discussion about cross-charging positively solved or I will have to either confirm or deny who was right in this discussion?
I was born in Ukraine but playing from Georgia. Interview at CO is on 9/9/2015

Would like to be more prepared. Any help is appreciated.
 
n.n. said:
@raevsky , @Britsimon

Sorry Gentlemen,

Is the discussion about cross-charging positively solved or I will have to either confirm or deny who was right in this discussion?
I was born in Ukraine but playing from Georgia. Interview at CO is on 9/9/2015

Would like to be more prepared. Any help is appreciated.
Click to expand...

I don't think we have a definitive answer - and in that respect, a person can take a decision. If the rule is unclear to us, it will be unclear to COs. That ambiguity will lead to decisions on both sides of the argument. So, whilst I tend to lean toward "elective cross charging is legal" in some circumstances, I think there is some risk in the approach, so I would not recommend it. It's just "stress". Now in you case of course, you should be OK apart from if the CO thinks about the limit placed on Ukraine - but again - that is a point which many COs might not even know.
 
Britsimon said:
I don't think we have a definitive answer - and in that respect, a person can take a decision. If the rule is unclear to us, it will be unclear to COs. That ambiguity will lead to decisions on both sides of the argument. So, whilst I tend to lean toward "elective cross charging is legal" in some circumstances, I think there is some risk in the approach, so I would not recommend it. It's just "stress". Now in you case of course, you should be OK apart from if the CO thinks about the limit placed on Ukraine - but again - that is a point which many COs might not even know.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I did my homework anyway. I have dozens of similar successful cases from Russian (raevsky's) forum. It seems to be quite common mistake for ex-USSR countries. There is also a reference to the following document http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108hhrg93387/pdf/CHRG-108hhrg93387.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------
Normal rules of chargeability may allow persons of one nationality to utilize a different nation of chargeability either to make themselves eligible or to improve their chances. For example, an alien from a high admission country, ineligible for a diversity visa, may qualify for a derivative diversity visa as the spouse or child of an applicant from another country. And since marital status is determined not at the time of application or selection, but at the time of the principal applicant’s admission to the United States, anyone the applicant marries before admission to the U.S., even though not named on the application, is entitled to derivative status as a diversity immigrant.
An alien from a high admissions country may apply for derivative chargeability through a spouse or parent of a different nationality even if the spouse or parent is not himself or herself applying for the diversity visa lottery. In such cases, both persons are considered to be applicants for purposes of cross-chargeability, and both must be issued visas and apply for admission simultaneously. Because chargeability is determined primarily by place of birth, a national of an ineligible country may qualify for the lottery if born in an eligible country, e.g. the child of Chinese diplomats born in Malawi while parents were on temporary assignment there. Conversely, children born in ineligible countries while parents were on temporary assignment, may claim the chargeability of the foreign state of either parent.
The statutory requirements of a high school education ‘‘or its equivalent’’ or ‘‘at least 2 years work experience in an occupation which requires at least 2 years of training or experience’’ are also challenging and problematic.
These are not problems that need to be or can be corrected. In my opinion they are inherent in the notion of a diversity visa lottery. Instead of trying to get the diversity visa lottery to work better, we should get to the root of the problems by abolishing the discriminatory visa lottery itself.
-------------------------------------------------------

So I think I should be pretty safe on behalf of chargeability. "improve their chances" means what it states. This applies to the case if both countries are eligible and you choose the one that is better.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top