DV-2014 Lottery High number or not? Please help.

[raevsky]

Ok got it - thanks - that does not mean the very last people getting interviewed next year would be much higher than this year, right? The curves I showed in the link were the progression of the current numbers each year. Nothing to do with open or hidden numbers, don't you think?

Yes, you are absolutely right.
However, those max numbers do not make a lot of sense. For instance, DV-12 numbers for EU included cutoff 40000 at some point while the max number was only 32000. So, making final cutoff 32000 or 33000 or 35000 or 40000 before current does not allow you to distinguish anything.
In DV-13 we have EU numbers up to 30532, but we saw cutoff 31000 and then 33000 which is even higher, without CEAC data moving up. We need the data for true max number, not for cutoff movement. However, we do not have that data. Only this year I have that data (DV-13), in DV-12 and DV-11 I had this data only for Europe from one of Russian forums that has a lot of EU winners.

Now, I have full underlying data only for years 2007 through 2013. The graph mentions 2006 as an off year. I do not know what happened that year, but I know that years since 2001 until 2007 were years when facial recognition technology was improving gradually. That could trigger 2006 to be an off year. Another thing is regional quota. I do not have reliable sources for information about regional quotas for all years, only for some of them. However, some unreliable sources I have mention EU quota dropped in 2006 compared to 2005 (I have an unreliable source saying in 2005 it was 17248 and in 2006 it was 14875).

Facial recognition technology is stable now. Yes, regional quota is a variable we do not know anything about. Changes in regional quotas could change the picture. However, in dv-14 ALL regions increase max numbers. And the sum of regional quotas did not change - world quota is the same.

 

[raevsky]

Yes, there is another thing that I did not mention before. In DV-2012 the vast majority of EU open numbers was below 32000. However, I saw in Ankara consular schedule one single number above that - number EU45188 scheduled for the first decade of September (9/5/2012). The whole Russian forum saw this number on their schedule, and I emailed them asking whether this is a mistake. Ankara consulate answered me it was not a mistake, the number was correct, that is what KCC sent to the consulate.
The number appeared on the schedule in the beginning of August (8/9/2012), and of course, the schedule was published on the consular website.

I think they accidentally released this hidden number and put it on the schedule when EU numbers became current. But with this number present the cutoff 40000 makes sense. Those numbers (between 32000 and 40000) really existed, but we did not see them because they were hidden.

 

[raevsky]

And regarding conspiracy.

Contradictions are not conspiracy. They are caused by typos or something like that. DOS does not intentionally lie to misrepresent facts. Typos and contradictions accompany everybody's work. DOS's too. That is very much different from conspiracy. For DOS this is all internal working process. Sometimes it goes on the surface (like when VB publishes cut offs that are well above max published number). All those things are published, they are not classified, and nothing reminds me of any kind of conspiracy.

Of course, at the same time the legality of hidden winners not knowing they are winners could be questionable (or could be not). I would understand DOS's intention to resolve this duality as well.

 

[House409]

Yes, you are absolutely right.
However, those max numbers do not make a lot of sense. For instance, DV-12 numbers for EU included cutoff 40000 at some point while the max number was only 32000. So, making final cutoff 32000 or 33000 or 35000 or 40000 before current does not allow you to distinguish anything.
In DV-13 we have EU numbers up to 30532, but we saw cutoff 31000 and then 33000 which is even higher, without CEAC data moving up. We need the data for true max number, not for cutoff movement.

.

yes, I was surprised when they increased the last cutoff to 33000 in DV13 while 30532 was the last CN to be registered in their CEAC system. They may just have increased from 31000 to 33000 just because they did not want to show EU current too soon vs other regions, or some AOS where between 31000 and 33000, or for any other reason than we will never be able to figure out. But I agree that showing CURRENT in the VB does not say anything about what is the last CN to be interviewed. And it really looks like 30500s are the last numbers to get interviewed for DV13.

 

[House409]

And regarding conspiracy.

Contradictions are not conspiracy. They are caused by typos or something like that. DOS does not intentionally lie to misrepresent facts. Typos and contradictions accompany everybody's work. DOS's too. That is very much different from conspiracy. For DOS this is all internal working process. Sometimes it goes on the surface (like when VB publishes cut offs that are well above max published number). All those things are published, they are not classified, and nothing reminds me of any kind of conspiracy.

Of course, at the same time the legality of hidden winners not knowing they are winners could be questionable (or could be not). I would understand DOS's intention to resolve this duality as well.

I don't really agree on conspiracy or typos theories. When I just look on how many people at work affirm things they have absolutely no clue about, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of things written or told by DOS reps that are contradictory, even if these guys mean well. Immigration law is so complex that even attorneys say stupid things sometimes.
Did you ever read an official statement from DOS defining what a 'winner' means? And does every DOS rep have the same definition of a 'winner'?

 

[House409]

And does the word 'winner' have even any legal existence in the Immigration Law verbiage?

 

[raevsky]

yes, I was surprised when they increased the last cutoff to 33000 in DV13 while 30532 was the last CN to be registered in their CEAC system. They may just have increased from 31000 to 33000 just because they did not want to show EU current too soon vs other regions, or some AOS where between 31000 and 33000, or for any other reason than we will never be able to figure out. But I agree that showing CURRENT in the VB does not say anything about what is the last CN to be interviewed. And it really looks like 30500s are the last numbers to get interviewed for DV13.

What I think is this cutoff should trigger release of additional hidden numbers into open world. When they say 40000 while 32000 is max, they additional numbers to make it 8000 higher. 33000 means only 2500 increase on top of 30500. That means the underfilling in DV-13 is much smaller than in DV-12 for EU region.
However, whoever is responsible for second batch, somehow did not release them. So the qoutas were underfilled. Because of whatever reasons. That did not happen in DV-12, is not happening in DV-13 and it seems to me they changed the procedure, that is the reason they decided not to have hidden numbers in DV-14.

 

[raevsky]

I don't really agree on conspiracy or typos theories. When I just look on how many people at work affirm things they have absolutely no clue about, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of things written or told by DOS reps that are contradictory, even if these guys mean well. Immigration law is so complex that even attorneys say stupid things sometimes.
Did you ever read an official statement from DOS defining what a 'winner' means? And does every DOS rep have the same definition of a 'winner'?

I think the law http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1154 uses terms "selected", "random selection". But the law is silent about notifications.
Government regulations (by DOS) 22 CFR 42.33 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title22-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title22-vol1-sec42-33.pdf use the term "selected". But 9 FAM http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87838.pdf uses both terms (winners is used only once). 22 CFR 42.33 does not say anything about notification, but 9 FAM does.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87840.pdf

If a case has been registered, the entrant will be notified electronically via Entrant Status Check

Also, instructions for selectees http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/visa_4756.html do not use the term winner.
And instructions for the lottery http://travel.state.gov/pdf/DV_2014_Instructions.pdf do not use term "winner"
But the official results http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_5715.html publication use both terms ("winners" is used once)

The same document provides the following:

The Kentucky Consular Center in Williamsburg, Kentucky has registered and notified the winners of the DV-2013 diversity lottery

The following is the statistical breakdown by foreign-state chargeability of those registered for the DV-2013 program

So you would have an impression all those cases included into statistics are registered and notified. Except that the numbers do not match in that case.

Regarding the term "random selection" all possible occurances in all legal dictionaries were investigated during dv-2012 lawsuit. And I do not think you will be able to find an auxiliary term "winner" that is not defined in the law.

 

[samershahin]

The thing is that DOS publishes the results of the lotteries (number of winners) they have INCLUDING hidden numbers. They do not distinguish between hidden numbers and open numbers. When they say there are 16045 winners from Asia, that means open and hidden total. That is why 9K open + 7K hidden looks exactly the same on number of winners statistics as 16K open + 0 hiden. However, max number per region you see from the forum is different - that is max number among open numbers only. If DOS wants to get rid of all hidden numbers and release all of them as open - that would look exactly in the following way - the same number of winners per country, but a much higher max per region.
So, if they republish DV-13 results under no hidden numbers doctrine, they would have exactly the same number of winners per country, with much higher max per region, exactly same as we see in dv-14.

ravesky, i think the way you are addressing your points are getting more and more to conspiracy theory, its simple my friends, look at the link below, you shall find all the previous years statistics, check link 2, you will get, how much where selected for DV-2013, what is going on with all this talk here, please lets make it simple, as its a simple procedure for selectee's !


May i ask you how old are you??
link 1:
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/DV_Applicant_Entrants_by_Country_2007-2013.pdf

link 2:
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_5715.html

 

[raevsky]

ravesky, i think the way you are addressing your points are getting more and more to conspiracy theory, its simple my friends, look at the link below, you shall find all the previous years statistics, check link 2, you will get, how much where selected for DV-2013, what is going on with all this talk here, please lets make it simple, as its a simple procedure for selectee's !


May i ask you how old are you??
link 1:
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/DV_Applicant_Entrants_by_Country_2007-2013.pdf

link 2:
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_5715.html

Yes, I used all that data.
What exactly don't you like in the way I am addressing my points?
Why does it look to you like a conspiracy theory?

 

[raevsky]

May i ask you how old are you??

Why do you need that?

 

[raevsky]

If the 50000 limit achieved then they will stop issuing further visas for the years program, but within the last several years this 50000 limit has not been achieved.

For some years it was achieved and even overachieved. And What I think is happening not always 5K is assigned for NACARA, sometimes less than that (do not ask me why, I do not know). In that case they try to issue as many DV visas as possible, what could be more than 50K, but so that the total amount together with NACARA would still be under 55K.

Some entrants even though they get selected are not granted visas as they are unable to provide acceptable educational qualifications, police clearance, medicals, sponsorship letters and most of the time some lose the code that we must use to check in the Web Site if we have won or not.

And in some years in the past they did release those hidden winners into the open world to cover that deficit. For instance, in 2003, 2007. In 2003 they released really a lot of them. But in DV-12 they did not release new batches of winners. I could only guess, but my guess is they did not do that because of the DV-2012 lawsuit. They were probably not very comfortable with that thing being added to the lawsuit, or the reason could have been different. As a result, they had about 30% underfilling of the world quota in DV-2012.

 

[Vichel]

...But in DV-12 they did not release new batches of winners. I could only guess, but my guess is they did not do that because of the DV-2012 lawsuit. They were probably not very comfortable with that thing being added to the lawsuit, or the reason could have been different. As a result, they had about 30% underfilling of the world quota in DV-2012.

That really pi$$ed us off. My husband got selected in that botch-job DV2012, got disqualified, and then they go and not have enough people to give visas to!

 

[raevsky]

That really pi$$ed us off. My husband got selected in that botch-job DV2012, got disqualified, and then they go and not have enough people to give visas to!

Yeah. And DOS made inaccurate statements in the past, like this one during the court proceedings:

http://www.egorka.org/dv2012/11142011_response.pdf (filed 11/14/2011)

Now, even if there were some merit to Plaintiffs’ claims in their appeal, there is no possibility for granting meaningful relief, because the Court cannot order the State Department to issue more diversity visas than permitted by law, cannot reverse the selection of applicants from the legitimate diversity visa lottery, and cannot reduce the time it would take the State Department to process a greater-than-usual number of applications before the end of the fiscal year

And later they released a very unusual Section E in Visa Bulletin http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5692.html that was never part of VB before:

E. IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR DIVERSITY VISA (DV)2012 ENTRANTS

Successful entrants are encouraged to send in their required documents to the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC) immediately, so that an interview appointment at the appropriate U.S. Embassy or consulate can be scheduled in the near future. In order for an appointment to be scheduled with either a U.S. Embassy or Consulate, entrants must first submit the Form DSP-122 and Form DS-230 to KCC. Embassies and Consulates only have a limited number of appointments each month, including September, for DV applicants, so it is vital that successful entrants mail these documents to KCC very soon. There is no guarantee that a successful entrant who submits all of the required documentation to KCC will either be given an appointment or issued a DV.

There are several reasons why successful entrants should submit their documents to KCC now. First, there are 50,000 DVs available for DV-2012. Once all of the 50,000 DV visas have been issued for DV 2012, the program will end. In addition, because no more than 3,500 individuals from a single country may receive DVs in a given year, once 3,500 from an individual country have received a DV, other selectees from that country will no longer be eligible to receive a DV. Finally, U.S. Embassies and Consulates only have six months left to issue visas to eligible applicants in the DV 2012 program. Successful entrants cannot be issued a DV after September 30, 2012. Participants are reminded to check the status of their DV entry through Entrant Status Check www.dvlottery.state.gov, using the confirmation numbers they received when they initially submitted their applications.

And that was not unnotices by plaintiffs (filed 05/03/2012)

http://www.egorka.org/dv2012/050312_reply.pdf

This is particularly true because Defendants – after arguing that this case is moot because the State Department would be unable to process diversity visas for Plaintiffs quickly enough, see Appellees’ Brief in No. 11-5258 (the Court “cannot reduce the time it would take the State Department to process a greater-than-usual number of applications before the end of the fiscal year”) – have now placed on the State Department website an announcement that “[t]he Department of State may select more DV 2013 entries on October 1, 2012.”

And possibly DOS was frightened to release a second batch and instead decided to meet this heavy underfilling in DV-2012.
What I suspect happened next was they decided to change the process for the future to get rid of second batches because they were frightened by a possible lawsuit. So in DV-14 they do not have hidden winners any more

The judge in that lawsuit ruled http://www.egorka.org/dv2012/070412_decision.pdf

Ultimately, although we understand the plaintiffs’ frustration and heartbreak, there is no legal theory entitling them to enforce the results of a lottery rendered unlawful by the Department’s apparent negligence.

I do not see a reason why DOS cannot be negligent more than once in handling DV lottery program. That has nothing to do with conspiracy, just negligence.

This is what internal DOS investigation showed:

http://www.egorka.org/dv2012/020612_brief.pdf

Furthermore, the decision to move to an internally developed OV randomization computer program changed the contractors' scopes of work, and the CST director did not notify AQM of these tasking changes. This lapse provides further support for the OIG May 2011 inspection report recommendation that CA and AQM conduct independent audits of CST contracts.
CST failed to follow the Department's 5 FAM 610 requirements for project development, integration, modification, and maintenance of information technology systems, products, and services. These requirements apply to all Department personnel and to contractors involved in Department systems and program planning. Additionally, the U.S. Government Accountability Office in its internal controls standards identifies Application Software Development and Change Control as one of the internal management controls to mitigate risk for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. One of the requirements is that all new or revised software be thoroughly tested and approved. By not adhering to the SDLC process and Department guidance, CST failed to meet established quality standards and business objectives and added unnecessary and costly steps to the program development and testing stages.

I do not see a big difference from global prospective between violating 5 FAM statements and 9 FAM statements plus making all those typos.

 

[House409]

Raevsky, thanks for the links.

I find the following paragraph taken from 22 CFR 42.33 very interesting:

"Upon completion of thenumbering of all petitions, all numbersassigned for each region will be separately rank-ordered at random by acomputer using standard computersoftware for that purpose. The Department will then select in the rank orders determined by the computer program a quantity of petitions for eachregion estimated to be sufficient to ensure, to the extent possible, usage ofall immigrant visas authorized underINA 203(c) for the fiscal year in question."





It looks indeed DOS does only one single random draw. CN numbers are allocated to every single entries, ie the 10+ millions. This is why there are so many digits in the CN numbers. I don't think DOS is allowed by law to do a second draw. They just select the number of CNs they want to notify to get to the 50k visas at the end. It looks like they could decide to notify additional numbers after May 1, but they need to do this before the start of the FY. This is why they sometimes notify additional selectees on Oct 1. These are from the initial draw.

How could we figure out whether the 105/125k winners are on the first list of notified individuals on May 1? Do they notify only a portion of these 105/125k on May 1?

 

[raevsky]

It looks indeed DOS does only one single random draw.

Right, CNs are allocated only once. Good catch.

CN numbers are allocated to every single entries, ie the 10+ millions.

22 CFR mentions numeration is separate for each region. Each region has less than 10 mln. entries. No they could have 1 less zero for largest regions and less than that for some others. But they p[refer to have the full set of leading zeros for each region.

This is why there are so many digits in the CN numbers. I don't think DOS is allowed by law to do a second draw.

22 CFR is not a law. Those are DOS regulations. However, they have the same power as the law, just for DOS only. On the other hand, DOS is not capable of satisfying all requirements it lists in separate sources, all at once. That is what I said before. So you need to have a gradual careful approach to figure out which requirements it actually fulfills and which skips. Theoretically it is possible that 22CFR requirement has to be sacrificed to fulfill all other requirements, because we cannot fulfill all of them at once - they are contradictory. However, most likely 22 CFR is fulfilled. 9 FAM and other publications have less power. If they contradict 22 CFR, probably 22 CFR is fulfilled, not they. But you never know. As I said, I trust numbers first, declarations second. In this case both approaches lead to the same result, numbers + 22 CFR could be satisfied, and we have to skip 9 FAM and some other DOS publications as false.

They just select the number of CNs they want to notify to get to the 50k visas at the end. It looks like they could decide to notify additional numbers after May 1, but they need to do this before the start of the FY. This is why they sometimes notify additional selectees on Oct 1. These are from the initial draw.

In DV-13 they notified second group on October 22nd 2013. However, the website stated the notification was done on May 1st 2013.

How could we figure out whether the 105/125k winners are on the first list of notified individuals on May 1? Do they notify only a portion of these 105/125k on May 1?

If thy have second batch later, that means they do not release all of them initially. But they do not release the full amount anyway.
I provided the proof - in dv-13 16045 winners could not fit into 10700 max.

But for DV-14 we do not have data published.

 

[Kayend]

Raevsky, thanks for the links.

I find the following paragraph taken from 22 CFR 42.33 very interesting:

"Upon completion of thenumbering of all petitions, all numbersassigned for each region will be separately rank-ordered at random by acomputer using standard computersoftware for that purpose. The Department will then select in the rank orders determined by the computer program a quantity of petitions for eachregion estimated to be sufficient to ensure, to the extent possible, usage ofall immigrant visas authorized underINA 203(c) for the fiscal year in question."

Which part of the statement above mentioned it will only do a single draw per year? In the past, almost all regions have around 50% fall out rate (those who do not proceed or disqualify), so 105k selectee is needed to take up all 50k allocated visa. If that is the case, why you need to hide any case #? Why increase 20% more selectee in DV-14, if there don't even open up all case # in DV-13? If we talked about certain region is the reason for the increment, the computer program mentioned above is smart enough to random select the entries from the regional pool to the % that they wanted.

 

[House409]

Which part of the statement above mentioned it will only do a single draw per year? In the past, almost all regions have around 50% fall out rate (those who do not proceed or disqualify), so 105k selectee is needed to take up all 50k allocated visa. If that is the case, why you need to hide any case #? Why increase 20% more selectee in DV-14, if there don't even open up all case # in DV-13? If we talked about certain region is the reason for the increment, the computer program mentioned above is smart enough to random select the entries from the regional pool to the % that they wanted.

"... all numbers assigned for each region will be separately rank-ordered at random by a computer using standard computer software for that purpose... The Department will then selection..."

Looks like all entries get a CN number randomly (that's what I call a single draw), and then DOS picks the selectees starting from CN #1 for each region. It disqualifies entries which are not eligible, hence the holes. It chooses what numbers get a winning notification.

They don't hide numbers. They just notify the right amount of eligible and qualifying entries to meet the 50k visas.

This amount was increased to 125k for DV14 to make sure they can fill the 50k visas.

Remember, for DV13, they may not fill the 50k with the 105k notification (even DOS does have this data at this time). Looking at the mess up for DV12, they probably chose to add 20% in DV14 to make sure they fill the 50k.

 

[House409]

22 CFR is not a law. Those are DOS regulations. However, they have the same power as the law, just for DOS only.

Correct. CFR is not the Immigration law, but it is what they call the Administrative Law, and it is indeed the regulations for DOS to administer the DV program.

CFR22 is supposed to be followed by DOS, but it does not mean DOS could have interpreted their own regulations inconsistently in various FAM and other publications.

 

[Britsimon]

"... all

Looks like all entries get a CN number randomly (that's what I call a single draw), and then DOS picks the selectees starting from CN #1 for each region. It disqualifies entries which are not eligible, hence the holes. It chooses what numbers get a winning notification.

Just a slight clarification - the number assigned to all entries should not be referred to as a Case Number. It would be another "Entry Number" - and those entries would then be selected for further processing - at that point getting the "Case Number".