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

[House409]

They do. Not for Ukraine or Ghana, though. They do not have cutoffs for those two countries, but still have limits for them.
Also, cutoff for 4 other countries is current for September, that means not cutoff is set for them.

So, as you said earlier, that would mean all countries below the 7% quota have no equal chance. That would be unlawful?

 

[raevsky]

Would that be legal to put a cap on countries if they don't even reach the 7% limit? Does the 7% limit include all other immigrant visas? They may not grant 3500 DV visas, but overall (with other family and work sponsored visa), did these countries get 3500 visas?

3500 is DV limit only. Also, it is not clear whether it is 3500 or higher. 7% of 50000 or 7% of (50000-NACARA)? Not clear. But the limit is definitely between 3500 and 3850. Anyway, it is only DV limit. Family visa and work visas are also capped to 7%, but of a different worldwide limit.
I do not think it is legal to have a cap on countries that do not reach 7% limit. But both Ukraine and Ghana had special cutoffs sometime in the past, and this cap could have been imposed on them at that moment, and later not removed - by mistake.
At the same time there are other countries who had special cutoffs in the past, but does not have a limit today.

 

[raevsky]

Regarding the 7%, not it is only for the DV process and it is 7% of the 50,000 (so that means 3500 visas INCLUDING derivatives (family of the selectees).

Could there be a legal way to stop a country before the 7% figure - good question - I don't know the answer, but Raevsky seems to have found the evidence that it has happened.

Right, looks like that.

 

[Britsimon]

3500 is DV limit only. Also, it is not clear whether it is 3500 or higher. 7% of 50000 or 7% of (50000-NACARA)? Not clear. But the limit is definitely between 3500 and 3850. Anyway, it is only DV limit. Family visa and work visas are also capped to 7%, but of a different worldwide limit.
I do not think it is legal to have a cap on countries that do not reach 7% limit. But both Ukraine and Ghana had special cutoffs sometime in the past, and this cap could have been imposed on them at that moment, and later not removed - by mistake.
At the same time there are other countries who had special cutoffs in the past, but does not have a limit today.

The instructions say
"For Fiscal Year 2014, 50,000 diversity visas
(DV) will be available.

The annual DV program makes visas available to persons meeting simple, but strict, eligibility requirements. A computergenerated, random drawing chooses selectees for DVs. The visas are distributed among six geographic regions, and
within each region, no single country may receive more than seven percent of the available DVs in any one year."

So, if we assume that is not a typo, then then limit is 7% of the 50k (3500). However, I do believe that unused NACARA allotment could be added to the 50k, but the limit would still remain at 3500. Then again - who knows if DOS are reading their instructions as carefully as we are....

 

[raevsky]

Yes, and I guess there are many countries that get more than 3500 immigrant visas without being caped below 3500 DV visas. Still, I don't see how they could legally put a cap, if there is not another limit set in the law.

As I said, by mistake. The cap existed when they were close to the limit. Those years passed, it is now no longer close to the limit. But they forgot to remove the cap.

 

[House409]

3500 is DV limit only. Also, it is not clear whether it is 3500 or higher. 7% of 50000 or 7% of (50000-NACARA)? Not clear. But the limit is definitely between 3500 and 3850. Anyway, it is only DV limit. Family visa and work visas are also capped to 7%, but of a different worldwide limit.
I do not think it is legal to have a cap on countries that do not reach 7% limit. But both Ukraine and Ghana had special cutoffs sometime in the past, and this cap could have been imposed on them at that moment, and later not removed - by mistake.
At the same time there are other countries who had special cutoffs in the past, but does not have a limit today.

Could it be also the did not notify high CN numbers for these countries, believing they would reach the 7% with the first batch of selectees? Then, they could have open the numbers, but were not successful in filling the quota for these countries? Do you think they could hide CN numbers differently from one country to another?

 

[raevsky]

DV12 was abnormal, that's for sure, but the EU45118 had the right to get an interview as the region became current. I don't believe on a personal favor for that Case Number. What is odd is indeed the big gap between the highest CN number Raevsky saw in various forums (just below 32k) and this high number. When I look at the visa bulletins during that time, I notice the cutoff jumped from 32k to 40k between April and May 12, then became current in June. As if DOS wanted desperately to fill the quota and interview people above 32k. There is no explanation there should be a hole of 8k entries, since they number the original entries one by one. Statistically, there is no chance 8k entries in a row got disqualified. I don't really believe in a bug, because that would void again the DV12 selection.

The reason wht they had 40K in VB is they calculated that is order not to underfill the quota they needed to open numbers up to 40K. This is an indication that they were considering second batch of notifications with numbers up to 40K. They did not send those notifications though.
The same in DV-13 - with a SA max 1252 (up to 1275 maybe) they had cutoffs 1300, than 1500, then current. For Europe max below 30800, cutoff 31000, then 33000, then current. The decision was not to send second batch for SA up to 1500 and EU up to 33000.

 

[raevsky]

So, as you said earlier, that would mean all countries below the 7% quota have no equal chance. That would be unlawful?

When the country that will not be even close to 7% limit (like Ukraine) is cut and prevented from having more visas artifically, my point of view it is unlawful. What do you think? If the country meets finally 3500 limit, it would probably be lawful.
From those 6 countries Egypt, Nigeria and Uzbekistan could be close to 3500. But for DV-12 they were not. On the other hand, I do not know if they had this cap in DV-12 (Uzbekistan had, I know). But for DV-13 I do not know yet how many visas were issued per country - the year has not finished yet.

 

[House409]

The reason wht they had 40K in VB is they calculated that is order not to underfill the quota they needed to open numbers up to 40K. This is an indication that they were considering second batch of notifications with numbers up to 40K. They did not send those notifications though.
The same in DV-13 - with a SA max 1252 (up to 1275 maybe) they had cutoffs 1300, than 1500, then current. For Europe max below 30800, cutoff 31000, then 33000, then current. The decision was not to send second batch for SA up to 1500 and EU up to 33000.

If they didn't send the second batch, how could Mr or Mrs EU45118 know he/she won?

 

[raevsky]

The instructions say
"For Fiscal Year 2014, 50,000 diversity visas
(DV) will be available.

The annual DV program makes visas available to persons meeting simple, but strict, eligibility requirements. A computergenerated, random drawing chooses selectees for DVs. The visas are distributed among six geographic regions, and
within each region, no single country may receive more than seven percent of the available DVs in any one year."

So, if we assume that is not a typo, then then limit is 7% of the 50k (3500). However, I do believe that unused NACARA allotment could be added to the 50k, but the limit would still remain at 3500. Then again - who knows if DOS are reading their instructions as carefully as we are....

I do not know, that is rather difficult to say. I would think that if unused NACARA is added, 7% would be not of 50000, but of (55000 - used NACARA). However, i do not have a strong opinion here.

 

[raevsky]

Could it be also the did not notify high CN numbers for these countries, believing they would reach the 7% with the first batch of selectees? Then, they could have open the numbers, but were not successful in filling the quota for these countries?

Yes, that is all possible, and that would be legal. However, that assumes that they send second batch from that country if and when they figure out the cap is not close. Of course, provided second batches are legal them selves. However, they did not send second batch for Ukraine in DV-13

Do you think they could hide CN numbers differently from one country to another?

The result definitely depends on the country - some countries are cut and some are not. I do not know what factors are used to figure that out.

 

[House409]

Ok thanks a lot for the answers. I have the impression DOS is also learning a time goes by, and is probably fixing a lot of things with DV14. The first data in CEAC will be interesting. Do you know when those will be available? Just a few days after Sept VB is issued around Aug 10?

 

[raevsky]

If they didn't send the second batch, how could Mr or Mrs EU45118 know he/she won?

DV-12 was a very special lottery. A lot of people did not know there was a July draw. They truly believed they did not win in May and that was it.
So, about 10% of July winners did never check their status after July, and there was a major underfilling because of that. In order to decrease underfilling, in the middle of July DOS sent reminders by email to those who never checked the status to check it. Even though EU region was current since June, this number appeared on the schedule only in August. That makes me believe he or she got a notification in the middle of July with others who were reminded. They probably made a bug in the software that sends notifications and this number was somehow marked as an open number when those reminders were sent. I do not know, maybe they were testing, marked an entry open, and forgot to set it back hidden.

It is absolutely impossible to predict appearing factors like this number. And yes, everybody had a chance to be in place of this number. But this chance was much much less than 1%.

 

[raevsky]

Ok thanks a lot for the answers. I have the impression DOS is also learning a time goes by, and is probably fixing a lot of things with DV14. The first data in CEAC will be interesting. Do you know when those will be available? Just a few days after Sept VB is issued around Aug 10?

I would expect it to start appearing in the beginning of August. They do it by consulates. The whole consulate appears in one day.

 

[Zee Zee]

It's my understanding that per country quota is calculated based on the total of visa issued to any single country during the past 5 years. It's also my understanding that 7% per country limit applies to all visa issued, not to DV program only, so you have to combine the calculations. In my opinion, that could be the reason why in some countries they don't notify all winners and they allocate visas differently.

Per USCIS:

No more than 7 percent of the visas may be issued to natives of any one independent country in a fiscal year; no more than 2 percent may issued to any one dependency of any independent country. The per-country limit does not indicate, however, that a country is entitled to the maximum number of visas each year, just that it cannot receive more than that number. Because of the combined workings of the preference system and per-country limits, most countries do not reach this level of visa issuance.

Taking this into consideration, issuance of family sponsored visas, as well as employment based visas in fiscal 2013, may affect scheduling for DV visas in the next 2 months. Number of DV visa issued has always been based on the total number of visas issued and it's not something that can be ignored (although, they never explained the formula).

 

[Britsimon]

It's my understanding that per country quota is calculated based on the total of visa issued to any single country during the past 5 years. It's also my understanding that 7% per country limit applies to all visa issued, not to DV program only, so you have to combine the calculations. In my opinion, that could be the reason why in some countries they don't notify all winners and they allocate visas differently.

Per USCIS:



Taking this into consideration, issuance of family sponsored visas, as well as employment based visas in fiscal 2013, may affect scheduling for DV visas in the next 2 months. Number of DV visa issued has always been based on the total number of visas issued and it's not something that can be ignored (although, they never explained the formula).

OK so yes I can see where this could be the mysterious limit that Raevsky has seen. So this would mean the DV visas have their own 7% rule and are also impacted by the overall 7% rule for all family and employment based visas.

 

[raevsky]

It's my understanding that per country quota is calculated based on the total of visa issued to any single country during the past 5 years. It's also my understanding that 7% per country limit applies to all visa issued, not to DV program only, so you have to combine the calculations. In my opinion, that could be the reason why in some countries they don't notify all winners and they allocate visas differently.

Per USCIS:



Taking this into consideration, issuance of family sponsored visas, as well as employment based visas in fiscal 2013, may affect scheduling for DV visas in the next 2 months. Number of DV visa issued has always been based on the total number of visas issued and it's not something that can be ignored (although, they never explained the formula).

Compare to http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1083/0-0-0-1159.html

Limitation on visas for natives of a single foreign state. - The percentage of visas made available under this paragraph to natives of any single foreign state for any fiscal year shall not exceed 7 percent

203(c) does not cap dependent areas at all. Other sections of the law, applicable to family immigration, or to employment based immigration, do.
Cap is per category, DV immigration has a separate independent cap, 7% of DV category only.

 

[raevsky]

On the contrary, for 203(a) and (b) (but not for c)

(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. - Subject to 1a/ paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1016.html

 

[raevsky]

So this would mean the DV visas have their own 7% rule and are also impacted by the overall 7% rule for all family and employment based visas

I think there are 3 separate limits, 7% each. There is no global per country limit defined by law. But effectively, if category (a) has 7% limit, category (b) has 7% limit, and category (c) has 7% limit, then all 3 categories together (per country worldwide level of immigration) are limited to 7% of total. That is not a separate law requirement, just a math consequence of the first 3 limits defined by law.

 

[House409]

I think there are 3 separate limits, 7% each. There is no global per country limit defined by law. But effectively, if category (a) has 7% limit, category (b) has 7% limit, and category (c) has 7% limit, then all 3 categories together (per country worldwide level of immigration) are limited to 7% of total. That is not a separate law requirement, just a math consequence of the first 3 limits defined by law.

That makes a lot of sense. For the selection for these countries, they may then stop sending notifications at lower CN numbers than for the other countries of the region, based on the assumption they would exceed the quota otherwise. However, as they don't have the stats for the other visas until the year is finished, it is a difficult exercise for DOS to know when to stop sending notifications. Either they underfill the quota at the end of FY because of conservative assumptions, or they notify more selectees than needed, and cancel interviews just when there are no more visas available for these countries. What do you think?