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

[House409]

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".

What I meant is once they collect all the entries with the weird numbering (the one you got when you placed your original application, which is the one you use in their ESC system), they run their super smart computer and assign randomly a number to all entries, for each region. That is when you got your 2014EU0000xxxxx number. Everyone gets a unique number (you can call it a case number, a entry number or whatever you like). Then, if your rank number is below the cutoff for the DOS selection of your region, you are a winner. That does not mean you will be interviewed though as it depends if your number becomes below the cut off in the Visa Bulletin at some point in the fiscal year.

They selected 125k entries for DV14. They are supposed to notify all these selectees, as described in section (g) of 22CFR42-33:

"(g) Further processing. The Department will inform applicants whose petitions have been approved pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section of the steps necessary to meet the requirements of INA 222(b) in order to apply formally for an immigrant visa."

BTW, looks like for DOS you apply formally to an immigrant visa when sending the forms to KCC.

 

[Britsimon]

What I meant is once they collect all the entries with the weird numbering (the one you got when you placed your original application, which is the one you use in their ESC system), they run their super smart computer and assign randomly a number to all entries, for each region. That is when you got your 2014EU0000xxxxx number. Everyone gets a unique number (you can call it a case number, a entry number or whatever you like). Then, if your rank number is below the cutoff for the DOS selection of your region, you are a winner. That does not mean you will be interviewed though as it depends if your number becomes below the cut off in the Visa Bulletin at some point in the fiscal year.

They selected 125k entries for DV14. They are supposed to notify all these selectees, as described in section (g) of 22CFR42-33:

"(g) Further processing. The Department will inform applicants whose petitions have been approved pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section of the steps necessary to meet the requirements of INA 222(b) in order to apply formally for an immigrant visa."

BTW, looks like for DOS you apply formally to an immigrant visa when sending the forms to KCC.

Ahhh - I see what you are saying - I was thinking the CN is applied once the selectee is chosen, but yes I can see they could apply it first and that becomes the draw.

Yes agreed on the point of applying - it is upon submission of the 122/230 to KCC.

 

[House409]

Now I understand why I got so many zeroes in my CN number. Every entrant gets one unique number, but the few selectees get to know their number with their first notification in the ESC.

 

[Britsimon]

Now I understand why I got so many zeroes in my CN number. Every entrant gets one unique number, but the few selectees get to know their number with their first notification in the ESC.

Yes that does make more sense...

 

[House409]

Yes that does make more sense...

DOS chose 125k entries for DV14 to really make sure they will fill the quota. It seems there are more notified numbers than the 20% increase from DV13 (from 105k to 125k). If we assume Raevsky's theory of hidden (= not notified) numbers is wrong, as so many people tend to believe, how can we explain the very high top numbers amongst the selectees? Anyone has an idea? I can't figure out the reason.

 

[Kayend]

"... 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.

If I understand you correctly, you mean when they start the draw, every entries will have a unique # (which will use as case # when you are selected from the draw later) to start with, then it will select the numbers of entries from each region based on the % allocated for each region. e.g. for Asia it is around ~20% from the 105k in DV-13. So it will take 21k randomly assigned number, and go thru the fraud checking, if it is a fraudulence entry, it will skip that number or tag it as fraud entry and move forward until it has 21k entry selected. Then those number will publish on May 1st.

In case they need more entries in Oct, they will go thru the same process to convert more entries to selectee. That is why you said it only have a single draw because the drawing you are referring to is the process of assigning random number to entries.

If this correct, then it make complete sense to me.

 

[House409]

If I understand you correctly, you mean when they start the draw, every entries will have a unique # (which will use as case # when you are selected from the draw later) to start with, then it will select the numbers of entries from each region based on the % allocated for each region. e.g. for Asia it is around ~20% from the 105k in DV-13. So it will take 21k randomly assigned number, and go thru the fraud checking, if it is a fraudulence entry, it will skip that number or tag it as fraud entry and move forward until it has 21k entry selected. Then those number will publish on May 1st.

In case they need more entries in Oct, they will go thru the same process to convert more entries to selectee. That is why you said it only have a single draw because the drawing you are referring to is the process of assigning random number to entries.

If this correct, then it make complete sense to me.

yes, that's the way I understand it. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Britsimon]

DOS chose 125k entries for DV14 to really make sure they will fill the quota. It seems there are more notified numbers than the 20% increase from DV13 (from 105k to 125k). If we assume Raevsky's theory of hidden (= not notified) numbers is wrong, as so many people tend to believe, how can we explain the very high top numbers amongst the selectees? Anyone has an idea? I can't figure out the reason.

I personally believe the hidden numbers theory, but it seems DV 2014 does not have hidden numbers - and that is connected to the additional 20% of notified selectees.

The high numbers are caused by the holes (again, that is a correct theory in my opinion). The holes are disqualified entries.

Since I am confirming my beliefs, I also believe the CN does not include derivatives (because CEAC confirms this). That does mean there are contradictions in some statements that DOS have made, but that in itself does not surprise me - I have seen other examples of that sort of contradiction.

 

[Kayend]

I personally believe the hidden numbers theory, but it seems DV 2014 does not have hidden numbers - and that is connected to the additional 20% of notified selectees.

The high numbers are caused by the holes (again, that is a correct theory in my opinion). The holes are disqualified entries.

Since I am confirming my beliefs, I also believe the CN does not include derivatives (because CEAC confirms this). That does mean there are contradictions in some statements that DOS have made, but that in itself does not surprise me - I have seen other examples of that sort of contradiction.

Whether there is any hidden numbers it doesn't matter, what matter is the # of selectees that get notified. In DV-2013, does it notify all selectees which is 105k in May 1st? If they don't, then what % they will notify? If they really do not notify all 105k selectees in DV-13 then why are they increasing the 20% extra selectees? Do they think that even they open up all 105k selectees and it still cannot fulfill the global quota, so they have to increase that 20%?

So the next question is that, the 105k selectees only refer to the primary applicants and do not includes family members? If yes, then it will have more than 105k people going for the same amount of visa available (50k). In CEAC, it showed that derivative visa use the same case # as primary applicant. If the case # includes family members, it mean the actual selectee or case # issued will be lesser than 105k.

 

[raevsky]

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

105K/125K are entries, dependents do not count. While 50K include dependents.
I believe those two decisions are separate and done by different authorities within DOS.
1. 20% increase was done to prevent underfilling that happened in DV-2012.
2. Getting rid of hidden numbers (notifying all instead) was a separate decision made at the very last moment possibly by legal department. Has nothing to do with situation with underfilling. Just to get rid of possible violation of law.

then it will select the numbers of entries from each region based on the % allocated for each region. e.g. for Asia it is around ~20% from the 105k in DV-13

That is not really a correct interpretation of the lotteries. There are 6 separate lotteries, one per region. Numbering is separate for each. After the lotteries are complete, they sum up numbers and get 105K. That is how number 105K is obtained.

So the next question is that, the 105k selectees only refer to the primary applicants and do not includes family members? If yes, then it will have more than 105k people going for the same amount of visa available (50k). In CEAC, it showed that derivative visa use the same case # as primary applicant. If the case # includes family members, it mean the actual selectee or case # issued will be lesser than 105k.

As I said, there is a contradiction here between 9 FAM statement saying 105K is primary plus dependents, on the one hand, and numerical data one the other hand, showing that several countries for some years produced inconsistent results (the number of visas issued was significantly more than the number of primary applicants plus dependents; so you cannot issue much more visas than you have applicants for those visas)
As an illustration I showed five situations - one for Eritrea, one for Albania, and three for Greece (3 years in a row). In each count DOS issued significantly larger amount of visas from those countries than the number of winners from those countries it published. So, that cannot be the number of winners including dependents. That has to exclude dependents (then WITH dependents the number will be larger, and the high number of visas could be explained), unless there is a typo in the numbers. But we have 5 different situations, it is unlikely all of them are typos

 

[raevsky]

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.

There is a question of deference if the matter goes to court. Usually agency regulations (like 22 CFR) are considered equivalent to the law for the agency, unless they contradict the law. In that case they do not count. Of course, agency regulations could be changed by the agency itself. But written regulations are still valid until they are officially changed by the agency.
9 FAM is not DOS regulations, it is regulations of one of the department of DOS. I could guess that 9 FAM is equivalent to the law for that department, unless it contradicts 22 cfr. Then 22 cfr prevails. Just in the same way like 22cfr compared to law. Of course, that is all in case the matter goes to court.

 

[raevsky]

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.

Each draw has to provide it's own numeration system. Two draws - two separate numbering systems. The second draw needs to start from 1 all over again - that is what 22 CFR demands. However, that has never happened. "Additional selections" always started before from the number the "main selection" was over.
It would be really strange if two different winners would have the same number, and that would be the case if there are two separate draws.

 

[House409]

Each draw has to provide it's own numeration system. Two draws - two separate numbering systems. The second draw needs to start from 1 all over again - that is what 22 CFR demands. However, that has never happened. "Additional selections" always started before from the number the "main selection" was over.
It would be really strange if two different winners would have the same number, and that would be the case if there are two separate draws.

And because they assign a random number to all entrants, they don't even need a second draw. They just have to set the cutoff between those notified and those who are not.

 

[raevsky]

And because they assign a random number to all entrants, they don't even need a second draw. They just have to set the cutoff between those notified and those who are not.

What do you mean they do not need?
Of course, they COULD do it without the second draw. The question is how they DO IT, not how they COULD do it.
The page https://www.dvlottery.state.gov/default.htm?aspxerrorpath=/Secure/StatusCheck.aspx contains statement "Additional entries may be selected in October 2013". To me that means not like a second batch, but like another selection.
Because instructions http://travel.state.gov/pdf/DV_2014_Instructions.pdf state:
16. HOW WILL SUCCESSFUL ENTRANTS BE SELECTED?

All entries received from each region are individually numbered, and at the end of the registration period, a computer will randomly select entries from among all the entries received for each geographic region. Within
each region, the first entry randomly selected will be the first case registered; the second entry selected will be the second case registered etc

The statement "Additional entries may be selected" uses the term selected. What means the selection process is applied again. And "selection" is a legal term.

That is why I think the statement Additional entries may be selected in October 2013 has wrong wording, it contradicts to 22 CFR. And there is in fact no "additional selection" at all. It is just additional notification, not an additional selection.
The correct wording would be Additional entries may be NOTIFIED in October 2013


What assumes another contradiction. DOS states all entries registered are notified. That is part of 9 FAM.

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

9 FAM 42.33 PN3.3 Registrations
(CT:VISA-1905; 10-01-2012)
a. If a case has been registered, the entrant will be notified electronically via Entrant Status Check

And here - http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_5715.html

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

And then per country number of winners that sums up to 105,625

While only SOME of those 105,625 are notified, not all of them as stated above
The correct wording would be
The Kentucky Consular Center in Williamsburg, Kentucky has REGISTERED the winners of the DV-2013 diversity lottery and NOTIFIED SOME OF THEM.

That is why I think it is important that Ms. Thurmond avoids using the term "additional selection", she uses "second group" instead. I think she does that because she understands the difference between those terms and because it is not "additional selection", but only "additional notification"

 

[House409]

What do you mean they do not need?
Of course, they COULD do it without the second draw. The question is how they DO IT, not how they COULD do it.
The page https://www.dvlottery.state.gov/default.htm?aspxerrorpath=/Secure/StatusCheck.aspx contains statement "Additional entries may be selected in October 2013". To me that means not like a second batch, but like another selection.
Because instructions http://travel.state.gov/pdf/DV_2014_Instructions.pdf state:
16. HOW WILL SUCCESSFUL ENTRANTS BE SELECTED?

The statement "Additional entries may be selected" uses the term selected. What means the selection process is applied again. And "selection" is a legal term.

That is why I think the statement Additional entries may be selected in October 2013 has wrong wording, it contradicts to 22 CFR. And there is in fact no "additional selection" at all. It is just additional notification, not an additional selection.
The correct wording would be Additional entries may be NOTIFIED in October 2013


What assumes another contradiction. DOS states all entries registered are notified. That is part of 9 FAM.

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



And here - http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_5715.html

And then per country number of winners that sums up to 105,625

While only SOME of those 105,625 are notified, not all of them as stated above
The correct wording would be
The Kentucky Consular Center in Williamsburg, Kentucky has REGISTERED the winners of the DV-2013 diversity lottery and NOTIFIED SOME OF THEM.

That is why I think it is important that Ms. Thurmond avoids using the term "additional selection", she uses "second group" instead. I think she does that because she understands the difference between those terms and because it is not "additional selection", but only "additional notification"

Agreed - they don't do another draw, but they can select more entrants at a later stage. That's the second group, or second batch. And they never issue another table with the split per country of the winners, as you pointed out in another thread. This would mean the 105,625 include this second group. For this year DV14, they seem they chose to notify everyone.

 

[samershahin]

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?

I like the way that you are contributing into this forum, but i think that its better you address some points that all the pepple here can use and get benefit off, and what i think that its a sort of conspiracy theory is that you think there are some hidden and non declared numbers, since you say you have used the same tables i mentioned earlier (there are no hidden/non declared thing), the only thing i can confirm based on these statistics are that (which also i played with those numbers for a whole day): you start with an assumption led by another assumption, to some conclusion, I even did the same for the most stable three DV years 2007, 2008,2009, and I couldn't find something considered as a fact based on calculations, In simple words, you must as an experienced guy here in this forum, direct all the viewers to what really matters... and that why i asked you about your age.. Since i found some of your other replies related to procedure .. etc very useful.

 

[raevsky]

you must as an experienced guy here in this forum, direct all the viewers to what really matters

You know, what matters for me might be different from what matters for others. I am a mathematician and a software developer. What does matter for me is the following:
1. How the duplicates are excluded
2. How the numeration system is done. Especially about holes. Could I predict the number of holes? Could I predict max number?
3. What is the probability to win?
- does it depend on the country (if you have a choice of country)
- does it depend on the region and how (if you have a choice of region)

I am looking at the world from mathematical point of view. That is very much different from a lot of people.
Also, I do not play DV lottery myself - I am a US citizen. That is another difference between me and majority on this forum.

Of course, as an immigrant myself I am interested in immigration matters in general.

Regarding my experience - yes, that is true, I have a college age kid who was born already after I had my PhD.

 

[Britsimon]

I like the way that you are contributing into this forum, but i think that its better you address some points that all the pepple here can use and get benefit off, and what i think that its a sort of conspiracy theory is that you think there are some hidden and non declared numbers, since you say you have used the same tables i mentioned earlier (there are no hidden/non declared thing), the only thing i can confirm based on these statistics are that (which also i played with those numbers for a whole day): you start with an assumption led by another assumption, to some conclusion, I even did the same for the most stable three DV years 2007, 2008,2009, and I couldn't find something considered as a fact based on calculations, In simple words, you must as an experienced guy here in this forum, direct all the viewers to what really matters... and that why i asked you about your age.. Since i found some of your other replies related to procedure .. etc very useful.

Samershahin, Raevsky can obviously answer this for himself, but I think we should remember that we all participate in this forum for our own reasons. Most of us are here because we got selected in the DV lottery and come here searching for answers. In my own case I came here for that very reason a couple of months ago and since then have been happy to try and help a few people with their questions.

Raevsky isn't a DV selectee, he doesn't need the DV process - he is already there in the US. However, he comes here and (in my personal opinion) has a lot of good information to offer and enjoys peoples appreciation of that help. There is also an aspect of enjoyment of exercising the knowledge he possesses and perhaps even the enjoyment of the cut and thrust of debate. His answers are sometimes cruelly blunt (which causes upset in people less used to that style), but he is unemotional about the subject and we are all emotionally invested. Ultimately though, Raevsky chooses what questions he wants to answer and which to ignore. We are all free to do exactly the same...

Just my 2 cents....

Simon

 

[raevsky]

you start with an assumption led by another assumption, to some conclusion, I even did the same for the most stable three DV years 2007, 2008,2009, and I couldn't find something considered as a fact based on calculations

Yes, that is exactly what matters. You got it right, that is very correct point of view. You start from axioms, then get to theorems one by one. That means mathematical approach. If you have to disqualify incorrect statements of DOS on your pathway, you have to do that. Of course, by proving that with factual data. But finally everything becomes clear. Once incorrect statements are corrected according to the facts, you have a beauty. I understand you could not get through those incorrect statements, they are very confusing and do not let you enjoy life until you solve them. But it worked for me, and that is what I enjoy most.

 

[raevsky]

BTW, for a number of years I also trusted the 9 FAM declaration that 105K included both primary applicants and dependents.
Until in DV-12 Uzbekistan had a separate cut off. That seemed very suspicious to me, because it definitely pointed out to the direction that 105K are only primary applicants. Then I started looking for a reliable proof. And I found those 5 examples that convinced me the 9 FAM statement was inaccurate.