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

[rigateika]

Another interesting thing is the cup applies not to everybody, but to some winners only. I believe only to residents of the country. I suspect those country natives who live outside, do not have that cup. I do not know why.
That is an example of a factor that I did not know about.
In DV-13 those caps are:

Ukraine 14682 (max CEAC number)
Uzbekistan 19800 (data from forum)
EU max number 30532 (CEAC data)

Ghana 30538 (max CEAC number)
Egypt 22899 (max CEAC number)
Ethiopia 32912 (max CEAC number)
Nigeria 19997 (max CEAC number)
AF max number so far 97005 (CEAC data)

Hi Raevsky,

There is a case 2013EU30252 in CEAC. The case was processed in Kiev (Ukraine).
The case status is Issued as of 20-Jun-2013.

Could you please explain this?

 

[raevsky]

Hi Raevsky,

There is a case 2013EU30252 in CEAC. The case was processed in Kiev (Ukraine).
The case status is Issued as of 20-Jun-2013.

Could you please explain this?

There are two most likely possible explanations and a less likely one.
1. This is not a Ukrainian native, just processed in Kiev.
2. This is a Ukrainian native, who entered the lottery and mentioned on the electronic entry form that he or she lives in a country other than Ukraine. So the case was not capped. But later CP in Kiev was selected (not any other consulate, not AOS)
3. Less likely approach. My assumption that the reason is in the country of residence is wrong. However, my statistics about Uzbekistan makes be think that is the country of residence that makes you capped.

 

[raevsky]

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?

They do not know exact number of visas for other countries. But they have a very good estimate, maybe within several dozens. So they should be able to do more or less rough estimates, but may be mistaken in several dozens.
And yes, it happened in the pas when cutoff for region for current for September, but visas were exhausted on some date and they cancelled all interviews after that date.

 

[House409]

There are two most likely possible explanations and a less likely one.
1. This is not a Ukrainian native, just processed in Kiev.
2. This is a Ukrainian native, who entered the lottery and mentioned on the electronic entry form that he or she lives in a country other than Ukraine. So the case was not capped. But later CP in Kiev was selected (not any other consulate, not AOS)
3. Less likely approach. My assumption that the reason is in the country of residence is wrong. However, my statistics about Uzbekistan makes be think that is the country of residence that makes you capped.

During application, you provide both your country of chargeability (for most of us where you were born) and your country of residence.
I thought the law states the 7% caps are for country of chargeability for DV, and the same for other caps (family sponsor and work related immigrant visas). That would be unlawful then to cap per consular posts, or per country of residence, don't you think?

CEAC does not mention the country of chargeability of the applicants of each CP, so it is difficult to draw conclusions. Can also people change their country of chargeability during the DV process (switch to country where their parents were from, and not the country where the principal applicant is born)?

 

[raevsky]

During application, you provide both your country of chargeability (for most of us where you were born) and your country of residence.

Yes. Actually, it provides also country of birth - 3 countries.

I thought the law states the 7% caps are for country of chargeability for DV, and the same for other caps (family sponsor and work related immigrant visas). That would be unlawful then to cap per consular posts, or per country of residence, don't you think?

Correct.

CEAC does not mention the country of chargeability of the applicants of each CP, so it is difficult to draw conclusions.

We have egypt page with the country of chargeability.
It was switched to July today. http://egypt.usembassy.gov/consular/iv8.html
It showed June data until yesterday. It is still cached for June http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...v/consular/iv8.html"&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Egypt is one of those 6 countries.
I also ran CEAC data when Egypt had a cutoff 25000. So all numbers processed in Egypt with numbers above 25000 are not Egyptian natives. That hives me a lot of additional information.
For instance, if I have 2 numbers per thousand above 25000, and 8 numbers per thousand between 23000 and 25000, that means those 2 are not Egyptian natives, but of those 8 I could assume 2 are also not Egyptian natives, but the rest 6 are.
Also, when Egyptian cutoff goes up, I am pretty sure new numbers appearing are Egyptian ones (because other natives were probably added before that).
And of course, I could see exact chargeability on http://egypt.usembassy.gov/consular/iv8.html

Can also people change their country of chargeability during the DV process (switch to country where their parents were from, and not the country where the principal applicant is born)?

True. That page shows the numbers scheduled for June with the chargeability country before it is changed. But CEAC data with this page give you complete picture

 

[raevsky]

So, chargeability chart (when cutoff for Egypt is 50000):

23505 SUDA
23515 EGYP
23638 EGYP
23685 EGYP
23726 EGYP
23777 EGYP
23811 EGYP
23823 EGYP
23877 EGYP
24780 EGYP
26041 EGYP
31248 EGYP
31317 EGYP
31821 EGYP
33079 EGYP
33523 EGYP
36879 EGYP
37335 EGYP
42505 EGYP
45606 EGYP
45613 EGYP
47035 EGYP
49273 DJI
54002 SUDA

A lot of Egyptian (if we assume that Egypt is capped, those numbers are above cap, quite a few of them) numbers above the 22899 limit. But below 22899 there are 1126 numbers in Cairo

CEAC data above 22899 for Cairo (at the moment when Egyptian cut off was 25000):
under cut off
22899
23033
23398
23444
23505
23515
23638
23685
23726
23777
23811
23823
23877
24560
24780

beyond cutoff
26041
31185
31317
31821
33079
33523
36879
37335
40332
42505
45606
45613
47035
49273
54002

With numbers lower than 22899 there are 1156 CEAC numbers in Cairo.

 

[raevsky]

And all those number owners (egyptian natives) were probably returning from temporary work/study abroad for an interview in Cairo:
23515 EGYP
23638 EGYP
23685 EGYP
23726 EGYP
23777 EGYP
23811 EGYP
23823 EGYP
23877 EGYP
24780 EGYP
26041 EGYP
31248 EGYP
31317 EGYP
31821 EGYP
33079 EGYP
33523 EGYP
36879 EGYP
37335 EGYP
42505 EGYP
45606 EGYP
45613 EGYP
47035 EGYP

So you can be sure that the cap is not for all entries. Just for vast majority of them.
Those 6 countries have much in common and the situation should be similar.

At the same time I closely follow situation with Uzbekistan on another forum and have a strong suspicion that those uncapped numbers are for those Uzbekistani natives who do not live in Uzbekistan at the time of submitting initial entry. So I assume the same thing is for other 5 countries as well.

 

[House409]

So, chargeability chart (when cutoff for Egypt is 50000):

23505 SUDA
23515 EGYP
23638 EGYP
23685 EGYP
23726 EGYP
23777 EGYP
23811 EGYP
23823 EGYP
23877 EGYP
24780 EGYP
26041 EGYP
31248 EGYP
31317 EGYP
31821 EGYP
33079 EGYP
33523 EGYP
36879 EGYP
37335 EGYP
42505 EGYP
45606 EGYP
45613 EGYP
47035 EGYP
49273 DJI
54002 SUDA

A lot of Egyptian (if we assume that Egypt is capped, those numbers are above cap, quite a few of them) numbers above the 22899 limit. But below 22899 there are 1126 numbers in Cairo

CEAC data above 22899 for Cairo (at the moment when Egyptian cut off was 25000):
under cut off
22899
23033
23398
23444
23505
23515
23638
23685
23726
23777
23811
23823
23877
24560
24780

beyond cutoff
26041
31185
31317
31821
33079
33523
36879
37335
40332
42505
45606
45613
47035
49273
54002

With numbers lower than 22899 there are 1156 CEAC numbers in Cairo.

Your point is that the Cairo consular post only interviews Egyptians below their cutoff, and interview other individuals from other nations beyond this cutoff? Or do you see something else?

 

[raevsky]

My point is that Egyptian natives are capped. By number 22899 or so. And only a tiny amount of egyptian natives (maybe 2%-3%) exceeds the cap, others (97%-98% are under the cap). Numbers exceeding the cap are more or less uniformlely distributed between 22899 and max African number.
Those exceeding the cap could be interviewed in Cairo as well.
And I have a strong suspicion that egyptian numbers exceeding the cap are for those who lived outside of Egypt at the moment of initial submission.

So, if an Egyptian native lives outside of Egypt he has 4 times more chances to win the lottery than those Egyptian natives who live inside Egypt.
Summary.
Avoid being chargeable to those 6 countries to increase your chances to win.
If you have to be chargeable to one of them, live temporarily outside of your country of chargeability when you submit initial entry to increase your chances to win

 

[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

No, that is how regional quota is formed. Also, regional population is used.
Country participation in the lottery depends on the number you mention. But country quota is 7% of overall quota

 

[franko]

So, if an Egyptian native lives outside of Egypt he has 4 times more chances to win the lottery than those Egyptian natives who live inside Egypt.
Summary.
Avoid being chargeable to those 6 countries to increase your chances to win.
If you have to be chargeable to one of them, live temporarily outside of your country of chargeability when you submit initial entry to increase your chances to win

What is interesting in that theory is why would they cap people living living in Egypt and "help/promote" people who have been abroad when they submitted their application and only came back to Cairo for an interview? Would they choose these people because they for example studied/worked in America and would be a good addition to the pool of new immigrants or is it just an error in the system. Since I joined this forum (and my country's forum) I have seen quite a high number of people going for AoS or who have been working in America before similar to me on L-1 or H1. Don't want to start a conspiracy theory but does living outside of the country of your birth or having previous experience of working in the US helps? I guess that again goes against the lottery being fair :/

On the other hand people who had experience with other types of visas would know about advantages of DV and likely participate in
forums.

 

[raevsky]

Yes, CEAC includes now September data from consulate in Kenya, Nairobi. Max number for Nairobi in CEAC is 96988. The number 105628 from Kenya we see on this forum does not look like a real number.

 

[House409]

Regarding NACARA, I read in the DV14 instructions the following:
"By law, the DV program makes available a maximum of 55,000 permanent residence visas each year to eligible persons. However, the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997 stipulates that beginning as early as DV-1999, and for as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated DVs will be made available for use under the NACARA program. The actual reduction of the limit by up to 5,000 DVs began with DV-2000 and will remain in effect through the DV-2014 program."
This means up to 5000 DV visas can be used for NACARA. This means DOS can issue more than 50k DV visas for DV winners if they won't fill the NACARA quota, right? NACARA visa seekers are less frequent now as there should not by that many asylees left from these countries.

 

[Britsimon]

Regarding NACARA, I read in the DV14 instructions the following:
"By law, the DV program makes available a maximum of 55,000 permanent residence visas each year to eligible persons. However, the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997 stipulates that beginning as early as DV-1999, and for as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated DVs will be made available for use under the NACARA program. The actual reduction of the limit by up to 5,000 DVs began with DV-2000 and will remain in effect through the DV-2014 program."
This means up to 5000 DV visas can be used for NACARA. This means DOS can issue more than 50k DV visas for DV winners if they won't fill the NACARA quota, right? NACARA visa seekers are less frequent now as there should not by that many asylees left from these countries.

I haven't seem definitive proof that the unused NACARA visas are available for DV winners, but past years results sugest that may be the case. and the the passage you quoted above says that is the case.

 

[Kayend]

Hi Guys,

I use the DV-13 progress as an indicator to calculate the progress of DV-14 for Asia. In order for Asia in DV-14 to reach 27k case number, it needs the starting case # of 4300 as compare to 1900 in DV-13. This is just a simple simulation based on DV-13 with all the variables being the same as DV-13. The actual progress might be very different, so don't take the number too seriously. I just wanted to see how it progress in DV-14 taking into account with the same variables as DV-13.

%	Month	Cut Off Progress
23.68	10	4300	1018
14.89	11	5318	791
25.92	12	6109	1583
26.47	1	7692	2036
20.93	2	9728	2036
25.48	3	11764	2997
20.3	4	14761	2996
13.37	5	17757	2374
10.67	6	20131	2147
10	7	22278	2227
10	8	24505	2450
	9	26955

Let hope it will make a good start in 3 weeks time (Sept VB).

 

[raevsky]

Not clear. The sources differ.

For instance, http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_5561.html

The reduction of the limit of available visas to 50,000 began with DV-2000

And Britsimon qouted

http://travel.state.gov/pdf/DV_2014_Instructions.pdf

For Fiscal Year 2014, 50,000 diversity visas (DV) will be available

Also, http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/PUBLAW/HTML/PUBLAW/0-0-0-15244.html the wording of the law

(1) Beginning in fiscal year 1999, subject to paragraph (2), the number of visas available for a fiscal year under section 201(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall be reduced by 5,000 from the number of visas available under that section for such fiscal year.

However, the actual number of visas issued per year for DV is sometimes significantly larger than 50,000.
Actually, even before NACARA it was 3858 which exceeded limit of 3850.

 

[raevsky]

I haven't seem definitive proof that the unused NACARA visas are available for DV winners, but past years results sugest that may be the case. and the the passage you quoted above says that is the case.

I do not see this the passage says it in fact IS the case. It seems to me it is not contrary to the law if it is the case. But, for instance, it could be that DOS needs to make a decision beforehands how many visas to use for DV. And the DV-2014 instructions already have those guidelines included (saying 50000). That is just an example.

 

[Britsimon]

I do not see this the passage says it in fact IS the case. It seems to me it is not contrary to the law if it is the case. But, for instance, it could be that DOS needs to make a decision beforehands how many visas to use for DV. And the DV-2014 instructions already have those guidelines included (saying 50000). That is just an example.

The passage quoted is quite clear - "up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated DVs" - not ambiguous at all. However, I agree it is contradicted elsewhere.

 

[House409]

I do not see this the passage says it in fact IS the case. It seems to me it is not contrary to the law if it is the case. But, for instance, it could be that DOS needs to make a decision beforehands how many visas to use for DV. And the DV-2014 instructions already have those guidelines included (saying 50000). That is just an example.

My understanding is that 50,000 visas are made available for the DV program, but it does not prevent DOS to use some of the additional 5,000 visas normally set aside for NACARA. I am just wondering if there were less and less visas used for NACARA these past few years and that we are getting close each year to the 55,000 visas when adding DV+NACARA (except for the abnormal DV12). In this equation, if NACARA visas are reduced, DV visa numbers increase. Even if it is a small amount, it could easily add up to 5-6%, which would increase the cutoff of those interviewed by the same figure.

 

[House409]

Hi Guys,

I use the DV-13 progress as an indicator to calculate the progress of DV-14 for Asia. In order for Asia in DV-14 to reach 27k case number, it needs the starting case # of 4300 as compare to 1900 in DV-13. This is just a simple simulation based on DV-13 with all the variables being the same as DV-13. The actual progress might be very different, so don't take the number too seriously. I just wanted to see how it progress in DV-14 taking into account with the same variables as DV-13.

%	Month	Cut Off Progress
23.68	10	4300	1018
14.89	11	5318	791
25.92	12	6109	1583
26.47	1	7692	2036
20.93	2	9728	2036
25.48	3	11764	2997
20.3	4	14761	2996
13.37	5	17757	2374
10.67	6	20131	2147
10	7	22278	2227
10	8	24505	2450
	9	26955

Let hope it will make a good start in 3 weeks time (Sept VB).

Hey Kayend, how did you extrapolate the progression for DV14 numbers? Did you just made a linear extrapolation based on the fact that the 105/125 DV14 winners will get interviewed, assuming in DV13, all 105k winners were finally current (this would be contrary to Raevsky assumption that not all 105k winners were notified and interviewed)? Or did you use another method?