• 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.

Dv 2014 european winers here

britsimon said:
OTG you are correct to look at history, but you have only posted a fraction of the story.

In addition to the above, you need to understand the regional quotas and also the global number of visas issued. If you take a look at the table below you will see how EU only took around 14k visas in 2008 & 2009 AND those two years were dramatically underfilled globally. 2010 & 2011 were more "normal" with just over 16k visas and total numbers just over the 50k mark (but still below the 55k) total excluding NACARA. However, I believe we will see an EU visas issued of >17k this year and if EU stays ahead of other regions (as is it currently) then we could see EU numbers quite a bit higher than that.

Furthermore, the historical data shows the VBs going current for the last month or two. That won't happen this year (in my opinion), so we will continue to see cutoff numbers in August and possibly September.


http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY12AnnualReport-TableVII.pdf
Click to expand...

Hi
Simon u say 2010 and 2011 went over 50k exculding nacara ? There was over 1000 visas extra !
How do u explain that ? New borns?
Thanks
 
vladek15425 said:
Hi
Simon u say 2010 and 2011 went over 50k exculding nacara ? There was over 1000 visas extra !
How do u explain that ? New borns?
Thanks
Click to expand...

In the past yes we have said newborns. However, I actually now think NACARA has taken less than 5k each each - perhaps only a few hundred. So, I think the 51k may have represented an underfilling of the quota - hence more reason to push the selectees higher this year.
 
britsimon said:
In the past yes we have said newborns. However, I actually now think NACARA has taken less than 5k each each - perhaps only a few hundred. So, I think the 51k may have represented an underfilling of the quota - hence more reason to push the selectees higher this year.
Click to expand...

Pardon me simon
So now u think those extra have been dispatched to the dv lottery ?
Am I understanding correctly ?
Sorry I'm bit lost with ur answer above :(
 
Going by our number (35xxx) and looking at the ACTUAL HISTORIC numbers (!), I still feel pretty "borderline" and an interview *might* come late in the financial year, but you never know. In fact NONE OF US will know, it's all speculation.
One thing that is certain: That we will only find out towards the very end, and that is pretty nerve wrecking.
Anybody below the 33k CN mark...I would feel rather "safe"...as I believe in facts based on history more than in fiction based on speculation (lol).
Click to expand...
do you think that the KCC staff speculate.
look http://www.dv-info.site40.net/
on april for my case number (CN286xx) ??
no, please, too soon....
and I don't guess that in the next 2 months there will be so a big jump
having the inteview on may/june let's me make the first entry on october 2014, it would be good for us.
Click to expand...
In Europe, 60,000 numbers, why did not you think of them? What kind of selfishness?:)
 
vladek15425 said:
Pardon me simon
So now u think those extra have been dispatched to the dv lottery ?
Am I understanding correctly ?
Sorry I'm bit lost with ur answer above :(
Click to expand...


The DV global quota is 55,000. However, NACARA can take UP TO 5,000 of those leaving us with a quota of 50,000. However, if the NACARA program doesn't use all the 5,000 then the unused places can be used by the DV process.
 
britsimon said:
The DV global quota is 55,000. However, NACARA can take UP TO 5,000 of those leaving us with a quota of 50,000. However, if the NACARA program doesn't use all the 5,000 then the unused places can be used by the DV process.
Click to expand...

Understood thanks.
Did u see sloner's link ? Its a good recapitulative for dv cuts off .
 
Sloner said:
do you think that the KCC staff speculate.
look http://www.dv-info.site40.net/
Click to expand...


I don't understand a word of what you are trying to say here (or most of elsewhere), in response to me posting historic numbers for the EU region. Your link leads to a site, in German, with an explanation of how the DV Lottery works.

So what is your point? I was referring to all of us speculating, not any of the KCC staff.
What is contained in those tables are definite data, yet all I was saying was that we can speculate all day long...nothing to do with KCC.
 
britsimon said:
OTG you are correct to look at history, but you have only posted a fraction of the story.

In addition to the above, you need to understand the regional quotas and also the global number of visas issued. If you take a look at the table below you will see how EU only took around 14k visas in 2008 & 2009 AND those two years were dramatically underfilled globally. 2010 & 2011 were more "normal" with just over 16k visas and total numbers just over the 50k mark (but still below the 55k) total excluding NACARA. However, I believe we will see an EU visas issued of >17k this year and if EU stays ahead of other regions (as is it currently) then we could see EU numbers quite a bit higher than that.

Furthermore, the historical data shows the VBs going current for the last month or two. That won't happen this year (in my opinion), so we will continue to see cutoff numbers in August and possibly September.


http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY12AnnualReport-TableVII.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link.

But how do we know that by comparing (and speculating) the max visa issue for EU for each year (=your link) with historic CNs before they go current in each year (=my table), what the max case number will be that still gets invited for a DV2014 interview?
 
OnTheGo said:
Thanks for the link.

But how do we know that by comparing (and speculating) the max visa issue for EU for each year (=your link) with historic CNs before they go current in each year (=my table), what the max case number will be that still gets invited for a DV2014 interview?
Click to expand...

I and others are using a number of different indicators to figure this out. At the end it is all speculation, BUT there are some important variables that we can look at. To answer your question we don't know for sure, so for some the endless speculation will be annoying, others may enjoy/get comfort/realism from the speculation. Some of the inputs.

1. The split of selectees (which might indicate the regional splits/quatas at least in proportion)
2. The typical response/success/failure rate (based on the CEAC data for 2013, but with the caveat that we know it isn't complete).
3. The fact that in the recent years the global limit does not appear to have been hit (at 105k selectees). That led me to my "super simplistic" way to compare your number to the global number, with an assumption that the first 105k will be safe.
4. Raevsky and others have used statistical analysis to predict the cutoffs based on various factors. It has to be said that Raevsky (who is AWOL currently) was fairly pessimistic about cutoffs, but even he was feeling that numbers in your range were safe.
5. A look at the history as you have done. To be honest, I don't find that method very convincing other than telling us "capacity" for interviews within the regions. This year will not be like previous years - previous years haven't had so many selectees.
 
britsimon said:
I and others are using a number of different indicators to figure this out. At the end it is all speculation, BUT there are some important variables that we can look at. To answer your question we don't know for sure, so for some the endless speculation will be annoying, others may enjoy/get comfort/realism from the speculation. Some of the inputs.

1. The split of selectees (which might indicate the regional splits/quatas at least in proportion)
2. The typical response/success/failure rate (based on the CEAC data for 2013, but with the caveat that we know it isn't complete).
3. The fact that in the recent years the global limit does not appear to have been hit (at 105k selectees). That led me to my "super simplistic" way to compare your number to the global number, with an assumption that the first 105k will be safe.
4. Raevsky and others have used statistical analysis to predict the cutoffs based on various factors. It has to be said that Raevsky (who is AWOL currently) was fairly pessimistic about cutoffs, but even he was feeling that numbers in your range were safe.
5. A look at the history as you have done. To be honest, I don't find that method very convincing other than telling us "capacity" for interviews within the regions. This year will not be like previous years - previous years haven't had so many selectees.
Click to expand...

I would like to add on simon number 2- that beside the failures rate , there is excisting wholes due to abanded candites, that makes the cut off very inpredectible.
 
1. The split of selectees (which might indicate the regional splits/quatas at least in proportion)
Click to expand...
most likely
2. The typical response/success/failure rate (based on the CEAC data for 2013, but with the caveat that we know it isn't complete).
3. The fact that in the recent years the global limit does not appear to have been hit (at 105k selectees). That led me to my "super simplistic" way to compare your number to the global number, with an assumption that the first 105k will be safe.
Click to expand...
is refuted. I gave evidence.
4. Raevsky and others have used statistical analysis to predict the cutoffs based on various factors. It has to be said that Raevsky (who is AWOL currently) was fairly pessimistic about cutoffs, but even he was feeling that numbers in your range were safe.
Click to expand...
delirium. I is also completely denied everything and dispelled all doubts. this is the first Pittbul. :D
5. A look at the history as you have done. To be honest, I don't find that method very convincing other than telling us "capacity" for interviews within the regions. This year will not be like previous years - previous years haven't had so many selectees.
Click to expand...
On the basis of history can make projections cutt-off.
I don't understand a word of what you are trying to say here (or most of elsewhere), in response to me posting historic numbers for the EU region. Your link leads to a site, in German, with an explanation of how the DV Lottery works.
Click to expand...
I brought it for review. Can not see.
 
Sloner said:
most likely

is refuted. I gave evidence.

delirium. I is also completely denied everything and dispelled all doubts. this is the first Pittbul. :D

On the basis of history can make projections cutt-off.

I brought it for review. Can not see.
Click to expand...

I don't get what u trying to say sloner u must try to use plain words pls.
 
vladek15425 said:
I would like to add on simon number 2- that beside the failures rate , there is excisting wholes due to abanded candites, that makes the cut off very inpredectible.
Click to expand...


Yep agreed. The holes are somewhat predictable. For EU there are about 46k selectees and numbers go up to "the high 50's". The 46k includes derivatives, so you could take the max case number and say the holes are around 20% (if you include derivatives) or around 60% of the actual case numbers (if you ignore derivatives). So, a move of 10,000 numbers will only yield 4000 interviews and if they were ALL sucessful that would produce about 8k visas. However, based on the 2013 CEAC data, Refused, AP and abandoned cases account for over 25% of cases - so that means 10,000 would yield no more than 6,000 visas max (probably more like 5,000). Countries that hit limits help other countries so the first 10k would have a higher yield than the last 10k.

SO - EU could get 18-20k of the visas (especially if NACARA is not using many of the 5k), and that would take more than 40k case numbers. I just can't imagine cases over 50k having much chance at all and cases in the 40's are risky, but really, I can't imagine cases in the 30's missing out.
 
vladek15425 said:
Simon u speaking slonirish translate for us pls?
Click to expand...

Is there really any point??

Basically he is saying some is right, some is incorrect and he provided proof (that didn't prove anything new) and anything that Raevsky says is complete BS. Oh yeah and we should all believe Sloner because he is very accurate and never makes silly mistakes or assumptions. Well, that is if you forget the whole 2012 debacle. And the constant wittering about new software. And the refusal to consider the 140k versus 105k impact. And.... well you know - you get the point....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top