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

[Britsimon]

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

As I say I "lean" in that direction - however it is not cut and dried.

That extract by the way is not a statement of law by someone who has good understanding of the topic. It is a statement by Professor Jan Ting who was arguing to abolish the lottery. For instance, he muddles points (perhaps deliberately) to the extent that he suggests that someone charging to their parents country (missionary exception) would need to have their parents apply for admission (clearly incorrect). He states that marital status is not determined at the time of the eDV entry (but we know that entering with incorrect marital status can get you disqualified). So when you lift the phrase "improve their chances" from that statement, remember that the guy who said that was painting a negative picture and playing fast and loose with the facts.

Also remember that the 9 FAM notes (which IS what COs will go by as opposed to the testimony) has this:

9 FAM 42.33 N4.3 Errors in Choice of Country of Chargeability (CT:VISA-1478; 08-26-2010) If the entrant chooses the wrong country of chargeability at the time of the initial entry, the error will generally be disqualifying. However, if a DV applicant chooses a country of chargeability during DV registration that is within the same geographic region (one of the six) as the correct country of chargeability, and you determine that the applicant gained no benefit from his or her error, you may continue processing the application.

Note I have bolded the bit that counters the bit you bolded.

So - I don't mean to shake your confidence - In your case both countries are within the same region - so that is safe anyway UNLESS the limitation on Ukraine were floated (which I doubt). However, I just want to get the facts out there and re-iterate that I, personally, don't recommend this strategy for a simple improved chance of winning. Doing it to overcome ineligibility (as I did) is one thing (having a chance whereas you had none before). Doing it to raise chances from 200-1 to 125-1, (i.e. going from one region to another) for example, is another.

 

[Sm1smom]

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

People need to be very careful relying on this document to buffer the cases. I haven't bothered to open the document itself, I however had alarm bells ringing all over my head as I read the bit you quoted from it:

The claim that marital status is only determined at the time of an alien's admission into the U.S. is completely wrong. It is false! We know for a fact that a married selectee who claimed a single status at the time of the eDV registration but goes ahead to add the spouse as a derivative after being selected gets disqualified/denied at the time of the interview. The author of that document claims the spouse is entitled to a derivative visa, this is a complete opposite of what the DV rules says.

The author also states when cross charging to a parent's country of birth, the parent is/are required to have been applying with the child born in an eligible country. That is inaccurate. Parents are not required to apply or be processed with the child cross charging to the parents country of birth!

 

[n.n.]

People need to be very careful relying on this document to buffer the cases. I haven't bothered to open the document itself, I however had alarm bells ringing all over my head as I read the bit you quoted from it:

The claim that marital status is only determined at the time of an alien's admission into the U.S. is completely wrong. It is false! We know for a fact that a married selectee who claimed a single status at the time of the eDV registration but goes ahead to add the spouse as a derivative after being selected gets disqualified/denied at the time of the interview. The author of that document claims the spouse is entitled to a derivative visa, this is a complete opposite of what the DV rules says.

The author also states when cross charging to a parent's country of birth, the parent is/are required to have been applying with the child born in an eligible country. That is inaccurate. Parents are not required to apply or be processed with the child cross charging to the parents country of birth!

Thank, Mom, but the author means the case when single applicant gets married before the interview.
As for second comment, author mentioned "through a spouse or parent of a different nationality" and meant spouses of course.

Well, I agree that this is not good reference. I will keep it if CO tells me that I am not eligible to Georgia because my native country, Ukraine is eligible itself and the rules apply only if native country is ineligible.

I think I will not have problems with that. Russian forums are full of similar cases and none of the applicant had problems during the interview.

Thanks to both of you for help

 

[SusieQQQ]

Yeah the only issue would be if the CO picks up there is an advantage because of the lower Ukraine cutoff but as simon said, it's probably not in the mind of most of them. Simon has given you the appropriate paragraph from the FAM manual which is what the CO will be using, not some report by a non-USCIS committee from 11 years ago. The CO possibly would only realise the issue if you are actually current in a month when Ukrainian selectees with the same CN wouldn't be.