• 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 Lottery High number or not? Please help.

Just another interesting thing. I closely followed DV-2012 lawsuit. The appeal was done by one of the best immigration lawyers in the world (definitely one of the best 5, maybe one of the best 2), Ira Kurzban. Almost everyone believes he is so much ahead of others.
I saw Kurzban's brief http://www.egorka.org/dv2012/020612_brief.pdf
I was very much surprised by pages 16, 17 and 18 of his brief, because after reading them I had an impression I understood how the DV selection process is done better than him. He sees contradiction where I do not.
 
His answers are sometimes cruelly blunt (which causes upset in people less used to that style)
Click to expand...
Yes, that is true. I was brought up in this culture of truth, and I still enjoy this approach. It is very natural for me and all my friends. At the same time I know there are communities with very different culture.
 
For this year DV14, they seem they chose to notify everyone
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that is the case. So, that way they resolve a number of contradictions in DOS documents (not all of them though).

But that way they will increase the number of those notified but not called for an interview

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/...9/20100928165617su0.400932.html#ixzz2ZEOhdPGE

MR. WILCOCK: Not everybody chooses to apply, not everybody qualifies. So we have to – and people are given a rank number, and we start at the top. In each region, as we literally – it’s not plucking balls out of the pot. But let’s just imagine that we’re plucking balls out of the pot. We’ve got six pots for each region. The first applicant that we select out is given rank order number one. That’s the first person that’s going to be called for an interview, and then we’ll go two, three, four, five, six. The further down in rank number you are, the less likely you are to receive a visa. And that information is also in the instructions as well so that people understand that – the lower down the rank order you are. You may – you may not – it depends.

But we don’t have people show up and interview and pay for the application only to be – and then tell them that they can’t go because we’ve run out visas. We don’t do it that way. Carefully looking at the numbers and how they’re used up throughout the program year, and when we know that the next person in line is going to get a shot at a visa number, then we will send them the information about their interview date.

So people have to – that’s why people have to check regularly after May 1 to see if they’ve gotten the – well, first of all, they have to send the information into the Kentucky Consular Center, but then they have to look to see if they’re going to get called for an interview. Not everybody will get called for an interview.
Click to expand...
 
raevsky said:
Yes, that is true. I was brought up in this culture of truth, and I still enjoy this approach. It is very natural for me and all my friends. At the same time I know there are communities with very different culture.
Click to expand...

Hello Raevsky,

I would like to add something to the conversation. I think I'm quite relaxed about the DV since it is not a matter of life and death to me and if I won't get an interview I will extend my L-1 visa. It is not a perfect solution but can lead to the required outcome so please don't think that I'm bitter because you told people like me (EU CN39k) that we have no chance of getting 2nl.


Don't want to sound too harsh but to me it all seems to be a matter of personal culture. I think some people are negative towards you simply because of your language. Quite few times I have seen people addressing you Mr Raevsky or just simply saying Hi Raevsky and your reply was a quote with a cold answer. I know a lot of them get upset bacause of emotional involvement in the lottery and they are not happy with their low chances but simple "Hi" could change a lot. Based on what I have seen here, DV seems to be your "thing" and I cannot really question your methods but I think you are wrong telling some people that they have no chance at all. As you said yourself you have access only to official released data and KCC/DOS make mistakes or simply let some high numbers to get through based on some sort of personal preferences? What I'm trying to say is that people will respond better if you are polite and if you replace no chance with slim chance, around 1% or something similar, whatever. It won't be lying since neither you nor anyone else can precisely predict the outcome of DV2014. A lot of old, experienced people can confirm that you can stop a "war" with a smile, simple hello, thank you, please :) I think the mood on the forum would be much lighter without all the drama.

And now a question foryou :D Do you know maybe what was the highest CN in EU in DV2013. It will be interesting to see with Europe being current next month what will be the highest CN receiving GC.
 
raevsky said:
Yes, that is true. I was brought up in this culture of truth, and I still enjoy this approach. It is very natural for me and all my friends. At the same time I know there are communities with very different culture.
Click to expand...

I agree with what Franko said above regarding what you say, although I personally don't have a problem with someone telling the truth - but when you are so blunt in the reply it simply stirs up more animosity and I think it dilutes your message.

This board is an EXCELLENT resource and provides good solid information, much of it from your direct and indirect input Raevsky. However, for the sake of harmony on the board I hope you will keep delivering your message, but perhaps with a little better bedside manner...
 
kayend said:
I found this link. Based on the data presented, my interpretation is that the 105k winners/selectees do include family members. I might be wrong but this is how I interpret it, the percentage of winning the lottery is based on total number of entries and no just the principal applicants.

http://immigrationroad.com/green-card/green-card-lottery.php
Click to expand...
This is not a government website. And those are not odds in the regular meaning of odds. Those are some kind of frequencies. As I said AFTER disqualifications are done. Of course, it makes sense to calculate probability of wining in case your entry is not going to be disqualified. Those frequencies are not for that purpose, they are different for different countries of regions just because entries from different countries have different disqualification rates. For instance, a lot og agents in Bangladesh enter whole white pages into the system, of course all those entries are going to be disqualified.
Everybody could calculate frequencies the way he wants. Has nothing to do with odds of winning.
Moreover, we know that odds of winning from different countries of the same region are the same (with some rare exceptions though, because of DOS's imposing additional limits).

Someone put on his or her website some fractions without any explanations, and you are basing your logic on that
 
britsimon said:
I agree with what Franko said above regarding what you say, although I personally don't have a problem with someone telling the truth - but when you are so blunt in the reply it simply stirs up more animosity and I think it dilutes your message.

This board is an EXCELLENT resource and provides good solid information, much of it from your direct and indirect input Raevsky. However, for the sake of harmony on the board I hope you will keep delivering your message, but perhaps with a little better bedside manner...
Click to expand...
Franko is on my ignore list, so even though I see his post, I do not see it's content. Yes, Americans consume food differently than Englishmen. I came from the Soviet Union, and I also have less manners than a UK person, even though I understand the difference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
franko said:
Hello Raevsky,

I would like to add something to the conversation. I think I'm quite relaxed about the DV since it is not a matter of life and death to me and if I won't get an interview I will extend my L-1 visa. It is not a perfect solution but can lead to the required outcome so please don't think that I'm bitter because you told people like me (EU CN39k) that we have no chance of getting 2nl.


Don't want to sound too harsh but to me it all seems to be a matter of personal culture. I think some people are negative towards you simply because of your language. Quite few times I have seen people addressing you Mr Raevsky or just simply saying Hi Raevsky and your reply was a quote with a cold answer. I know a lot of them get upset bacause of emotional involvement in the lottery and they are not happy with their low chances but simple "Hi" could change a lot. Based on what I have seen here, DV seems to be your "thing" and I cannot really question your methods but I think you are wrong telling some people that they have no chance at all. As you said yourself you have access only to official released data and KCC/DOS make mistakes or simply let some high numbers to get through based on some sort of personal preferences? What I'm trying to say is that people will respond better if you are polite and if you replace no chance with slim chance, around 1% or something similar, whatever. It won't be lying since neither you nor anyone else can precisely predict the outcome of DV2014. A lot of old, experienced people can confirm that you can stop a "war" with a smile, simple hello, thank you, please :) I think the mood on the forum would be much lighter without all the drama.

And now a question foryou :D Do you know maybe what was the highest CN in EU in DV2013. It will be interesting to see with Europe being current next month what will be the highest CN receiving GC.
Click to expand...


For Raevsky...
 
Hi Raevsky,

When I read at 9FAM42-33 PN3.1, it seems DOS include the derivatives in the 105,000 selectees when they say "KCC registers approximately 105,000 applicants (both principals and dependents) each year". On the other hand, this sentence is by itself very ambiguous. This is always the case when one puts something between brackets. 'Both principals and dependents' could easily apply to the word 'applicant' but not to the number 105,000. Applicants refer to applications, which indeed include principals and dependents.
I'm French and English is not my first language. The language of Shakespeare is subtle for me, as it is probably for most of us.

Simon, could you give us some clues on how to interpret this?
 
House409 said:
Hi Raevsky,

When I read at 9FAM42-33 PN3.1, it seems DOS include the derivatives in the 105,000 selectees when they say "KCC registers approximately 105,000 applicants (both principals and dependents) each year". On the other hand, this sentence is by itself very ambiguous. This is always the case when one puts something between brackets. 'Both principals and dependents' could easily apply to the word 'applicant' but not to the number 105,000. Applicants refer to applications, which indeed include principals and dependents.
I'm French and English is not my first language. The language of Shakespeare is subtle for me, as it is probably for most of us.

Simon, could you give us some clues on how to interpret this?
Click to expand...

Bonjour!

I believe this statement is worded clearly, but is incorrect. The wording uses the term applicants and then qualifies that term by adding "both principals and dependents". That statement means the 105k includes derivatives - which I don't believe is correct. My reasoning is because of the CEAC data showing derivatives connected to the selectee Case Number plus the cases Raevsky has identified where a country has received more visas than selectees.
 
merci Simon! It is clear to me the 105k refers to applications only. Applications are the files submitted by the principal applicants at the time of submission. DOS always refers to application as being the file submitted by the principal.

If you consider 1.6 visa seekers (just an example) for each application, this means around 200k people are in the starting blocks for DV14, for only 50k visa available. Lots of them do not show interest, do not qualify, get rejected etc...
 
House409 said:
merci Simon! It is clear to me the 105k refers to applications only. Applications are the files submitted by the principal applicants at the time of submission. DOS always refers to application as being the file submitted by the principal.

If you consider 1.6 visa seekers (just an example) for each application, this means around 200k people are in the starting blocks for DV14, for only 50k visa available. Lots of them do not show interest, do not qualify, get rejected etc...
Click to expand...

D'accord.
 
House409 said:
Hi Raevsky,

When I read at 9FAM42-33 PN3.1, it seems DOS include the derivatives in the 105,000 selectees when they say "KCC registers approximately 105,000 applicants (both principals and dependents) each year". On the other hand, this sentence is by itself very ambiguous. This is always the case when one puts something between brackets. 'Both principals and dependents' could easily apply to the word 'applicant' but not to the number 105,000. Applicants refer to applications, which indeed include principals and dependents.
I'm French and English is not my first language. The language of Shakespeare is subtle for me, as it is probably for most of us.

Simon, could you give us some clues on how to interpret this?
Click to expand...
English is also not my native language, however it was clear for me too the wording is clear. At the same time I trust Britsimon more than myself in interperting English
 
britsimon said:
For Raevsky...
Click to expand...

I see a couple of interesting questions here.
About the highest number on CEAC for EU 2013 - CEAC shows 30532. The max number could be higher that that (because of AOS and other consulates), but not much. 30800 or even lower would be the max. Statistically 30800 or higher is almost impossible
The most interesting thing is the EU45188 number in DV-2012, when regular numbers did not exceed 32000. I think this number was open my another mistake, probably, a computer bug, definitely nothing personal.

Yes, that is only officially released data that I have. I believe in no personal preferences, only in DOS mistakes/errors/computer bugs. I think those guys (computer programmers) never read 9 FAM and implemented something contrary to it just because it was more logical. I also think they never read other controversial statements of DOS.
If I mean I do not see chances, I cannot say I see them. It would be strange if I was able to estimate chances to 1% in that case.
I do not see a state of war, this is a state of ignorance only. Thanks to Britsimon, I read this message though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
raevsky said:
I see a couple of interesting questions here.
About the highest number on CEAC for EU 2013 - CEAC shows 30532. The max number could be higher that that (because of AOS and other consulates), but not much. 30800 or even lower would be the max. Statistically 30800 or higher is almost impossible
The most interesting thing is the EU45188 number in DV-2012, when regular numbers did not exceed 32000. I think this number was open my another mistake, probably, a computer bug, definitely nothing personal.

Yes, that is only officially released data that I have. I believe in no personal preferences, only in DOS mistakes/errors/computer bugs. I think those guys (computer programmers) never read 9 FAM and implemented something contrary to it just because it was more logical. I also think they never read other controversial statements of DOS.
If I mean I do not see chances, I cannot say I see them. It would be strange if I was able to estimate chances to 1% in that case.
I do not see a state of war, this is a state of ignorance only. Thanks to Britsimon, I read this message though.
Click to expand...

Glad to have read that reply.

Raevsky the 1% chance of someone winning despite being outside your estimated range is hard for you to admit because you believe in your calculations and you believe you know all the relevant factors. However, what might appen is you MIGHT not know everything and you MAY have a bug in your calculations. Can you accept that is a possibility? If so then rather than a typical answer of "according to my calculations you have no chance", you could write "according to my calculations you have little or no chance, but my calculations could be wrong so good luck." Still tell the truth, but no need to steal people's hope when another 2012EU45188 glitch could happen...
 
britsimon said:
Glad to have read that reply.

Raevsky the 1% chance of someone winning despite being outside your estimated range is hard for you to admit because you believe in your calculations and you believe you know all the relevant factors. However, what might appen is you MIGHT not know everything and you MAY have a bug in your calculations. Can you accept that is a possibility? If so then rather than a typical answer of "according to my calculations you have no chance", you could write "according to my calculations you have little or no chance, but my calculations could be wrong so good luck." Still tell the truth, but no need to steal people's hope when another 2012EU45188 glitch could happen...
Click to expand...

Hi Britsimon,

Thank you for your response to my earlier question. I was wondering if you know how we find out what our filed office is. Do we have to figure it out on our own? I live in Indiana, and both Indianapolis and Chicago are about the same number of miles away from my town. I am not sure which field office I should go to for my interview. I know it's a bit too early to talk about it, but I just thought someone might know the answer. Thank you!
 
fiefia said:
Hi Britsimon,

Thank you for your response to my earlier question. I was wondering if you know how we find out what our filed office is. Do we have to figure it out on our own? I live in Indiana, and both Indianapolis and Chicago are about the same number of miles away from my town. I am not sure which field office I should go to for my interview. I know it's a bit too early to talk about it, but I just thought someone might know the answer. Thank you!
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters - if you are in Indiana I imagine you could use either office. In general I would personally use their field office locator tool using the zip code rather than picking the State - https://egov.uscis.gov/crisgwi/go?action=offices.type&OfficeLocator.office_type=LO

If that comes back with a choice of two, then I would imagine you could use either one - pick the one you feel is more convenient. You might want to double check the experiences of other people at the FO you choose to see if people had unusually good or bad experience.

Hope that helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top