FSW2015
Active Member
You don't have to apologize. Speaking for myself, I enjoy our discussions. And if I got some of the facts wrong, I would love to be corrected by more knowledgeable members.
DV-2015 winners from Asia with CN 10,000+
- Thread starter Elmar
- Start date
Anxiety2015
Active Member
That is an assumption you make, how would you know I did not apply the very 1st year of DV?
I could have applied all these years and never got selected until now, right?
Correct, this is the lottery I entered and I try to understand the rule/law as much as I can. Notice how I point out the fact/illustration and make sure you understand I am not talking about fairness?
Again, Simon, thanks for the kind words. I must humbly suggest I like math, not good at it.
And I know where you are going with this as well. You are probably saying Nepal and Iran has way more applicants and therefore selectees as well. As a result, their "dominance" is justified.
If this is what you meant, no argument there.
However, this does not change the effect of the blanket 7% max to AS, EU,AF being different.
Lastly, I fully understand this is how the law is written regardless of intention.
You've always been kind and respectful, and the stress is understandable, it's going to be a long week, hope it ends happily.
Oh sorry, Simon. Of course, you never said that. I was just making some speculations. Thanks for clarifying!
Anxiety2015
Active Member
Thanks guys, the whole point about this exercise is to illustrate things from a different perspective.
And to FSW's point, what good is knowledge if we don't share and advance together?
I think Simon might have misunderstand this as a complaining about fairness post.
Quite on the contrary, this is a try looking at this perspective in light of the situation we face kind of post.
Anxiety2015
Active Member
Hmmm, while I have no proof, one would imagine the VO has some sort of plan/target especially for the heavy weight player, right?
After all, I hope we are not in a game of natural fall out.
Especially if they're feeling guilty about last year's Iran's "catastrophe".
Sorry can't help the speculation.
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Actually you have just pointed out that you don't read the points correctly. I said THIS lottery - the year you won. I am not speculating about when you started entering - just that when you entered this lottery in October/November 2013, the rules were the rules.
Yes, the effect of an arbitrary cap will obviously be different in each region. Again - that is one of the rules (laws) of the lottery.
There are other laws too.
One is that anyone can enter, another that all entries in a region will have an equal chance of being selected, and a third is that cases will be processed based on rank order (case number) although the batching implied by the visa bulletin is also to be considered, and of course, not everyone will respond or be approved.
That one sentence is all you need to understand this whole thing for Asia. Out of 1.5 million entries in Asia, 545k were from Nepal and 500k were from Iran. In Nepal in particular there are some large agencies operating and those agencies seem to do a good job without ripping people off. Nepalese approval rates are superb and their response rates are extremely high.
Iran have a different set of problems, not least of which is the fact that they have to travel to different countries to perform their interviews because of the political situation in their own country.
So - those two countries organize well, and show determination. They end up with more visas.
ROA selectees don't respond at the same rate, have more no shows and don't get approved as often. There is nothing stopping them changing that. Indonesia for example has 10k entries. There is nothing stopping them getting themselves organized and increasing their entries.
Of course there are some aspects that seem unfair. Adding derivatives for example. CN001 enters as single, wins, and marries a woman with 9 children. The last 10 people just lost their chance. Is that fair? Not really - but that is the rule. Why are we not whining about that?
SusieQQQ
Well-Known Member
This makes no sense. Kcc does not have to give a single Nacara visa to anyone outside the Nacara program, so how can you say what a fair share is or if a country is over or under that?
Anxiety2015
Active Member
Simon, 1 thing for sure, we agree to disagree, lol.
When you say"this lottery" and "The laws have been set WAY before" , I thought you meant DV lottery as a whole.
After all, the law changes ever so slightly over the years except the NACARA starting in 1999.
And this is exactly what I am trying to illustrate, without judgement, or at least I hoped/pointed out.
Why would I say without judgement? Let me explain below.
Why are we not whining about that? Because we are not whining at all.
Consider this for a moment: It's 20 degree celsius out (68 F). It's so hot!
It's 20 degree celsius out (68 F) - This part is what we said, an illustration of fact/calcualtion.
It's so hot!- This part is what we did not say. It might be pretty cool for Sensei in Bangkok(if I remember correctly) or pretty hot to me in Canada where temp can be as low as -40.
It is the very purpose of my post above to ensure we illustrate facts/calculation (think temperature) and reserve any judgement (think feeling of hot/cold).
When you say"this lottery" and "The laws have been set WAY before" , I thought you meant DV lottery as a whole.
After all, the law changes ever so slightly over the years except the NACARA starting in 1999.
And this is exactly what I am trying to illustrate, without judgement, or at least I hoped/pointed out.
Why would I say without judgement? Let me explain below.
Why are we not whining about that? Because we are not whining at all.
Consider this for a moment: It's 20 degree celsius out (68 F). It's so hot!
It's 20 degree celsius out (68 F) - This part is what we said, an illustration of fact/calcualtion.
It's so hot!- This part is what we did not say. It might be pretty cool for Sensei in Bangkok(if I remember correctly) or pretty hot to me in Canada where temp can be as low as -40.
It is the very purpose of my post above to ensure we illustrate facts/calculation (think temperature) and reserve any judgement (think feeling of hot/cold).
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Come on Anxiety - you are being extremely disingenuous. You "illustrate" a number of points of view that are obviously from one perspective and extremely slanted. You then say you are not trying to say what is fair or not. It is like a politician who says to a crowd "the banks stole all your money, but who am I to say whether that is fair or not".
Anxiety2015
Active Member
Thanks Sussie for asking, I was thinking to share after I got through my interview but since you ask...
First, a couple of terms for the "just reading" folks, since I find it confusing for myself in the beginning.
VO = Visa Office, they calculate the VBs(visa bulletin), quota, target for all numerically control visa (i.e. Family, Employment, Diversity. Note Family is not the same as Immediate relative)
KCC = Kentucky Consular Center, they do the admin stuff, processing, scheduling.....no calculation of VBs
NACARA = A relief act, mandated by congress to reserve 5000 visa from the 55K of DV under INA 203. and another amount from employment under INA 202.
So, we know they take the 5k upfront and rarely use up to 2.5k in total in recent (3-5 yr) if memory servers me right.
Thanks to DV4Roger, I've run some calculation based on his 2014 quota.
As you can see under "2014 50K only" AF should take 22400 before NACARA.
If we take 51913(from table 7) - 50K we have 1913 from NACARA.
Assuming NACARA will be distributed according to the region/quota split - I cannot find the law mandate this, hence the fair assumption.
You will find the respective NACARA visa under "Possible NACARA"
AF has used 554 visa less (Diff. from NACARA) than they could, where there are still selectees left in the pool, or else they would have called current right?
If we further assume the NACARA return is 2k, you will see the difference under (Diff. from NACARA 2)
In fact, EU, AS, OC had taken more than their"fair" share of NACARA return in 2014. This partly explain my earlier worry of AS not going to hit 8500 this year.
On a seperate not, I have combined SA and NA together. I am sure you can agree that NA is too small to be of any effect on calculation.
Attachments
Last edited:
Anxiety2015
Active Member
Simon, I have always (at least I tried) respected you and others and will continue to do so.
However, respect doesn't mean agreement.
That's your opinion and I can respect that. I wish I can say the same for your statement.
Regarding your comment about a politician, that's a little disappointing. Politicians, like a policeman/prosecutor can present facts. Of course they can have an opinion, but at the end, it's up to the judge.
Now who's the judge? All of you.
You said I've "illustrated a number of points of view that are obviously from one perspective and extremely slanted..."
How is this slanted, let alone extreme if I may ask? Did I weight the numbers, jig the fact or hide the bins using a graph, or in other words, create an illusion?
We are talking about a straight and no nonsense calculation based on known numbers. How much simpler can it get other than division?
I did the illustration based on fact/known numbers, I think that you or other can agree to.
If not, kindly advise which part of the number/calculation is incorrect.
If you have another illustration to counter my illustration, I've always welcome/ready to learn. However, as Euro has reminded me yesterday, I should not/will not force you. Again, I say this out of respect.
Whether it's fair or not, we can all make our own judgement and that's not the point like I said.
The point is, let's look at this together from another perspective. Learn and share together.
Last edited:
Britsimon
Super Moderator
You responded to my post earlier where I pointed out the salient laws and the numbers, but you edited out my points in your response. So - you say you are ready to learn and input is welcome, but you ignore the input entirely and even go to the trouble to edit it out. You are deliberately avoiding the rules point because it doesn't suit your narrative. So, for all the bluster, you don't really want to have a real discussion that gets to understanding - you have made up your mind and whilst I can understand the frustration, I don't think my characterization of your behavior was far off at all.
Anxiety2015
Active Member
Ok, let's try this again (disclaimer, I have edited out the part where I misunderstood what Simon refers to as "THIS lottery". For that, read earlier post. Any editing is for easy reading as the original post can easily be found with this thread/forum.
Now with that out of the way...I can agree to the 1st sentence "Yes, the effect of an arbitrary cap will obviously be different in each region. Again - that is one of the rules (laws) of the lottery." This is illustrated with my calculation below, no illusion, no cheats.
I can agree to the rest of the post you made and you helped me understand them early on(thank you again, however extremely disingenuous you might find), EXCEPT : "Why are we not whining about that?" and "Of course there are some aspects that seem unfair." and "Is that fair? Not really - but that is the rule." Again, any editing is for easy reading as the original post can easily be found with the quote above.
Simply put, no one is whining, claiming it's fair or unfair......like you've said, that's the rule, no argument there.
I've illustrated a simple calculation which explains the situation we face, and what's wrong with that?
Anxiety2015
Active Member
By the way Simon, have I at least once use negative words on you such as :extremely disingenuous, dance like a bumble bee...
As far as I can recall, I didn't
Have I at least once doubt yours/anyone's characters?
As far as I can recall, I didn't
If I did, in any shape of form, offended anyone. I can say for sure I didn't intent to and probably it's my tasteless jokes.
At the very least, I tried to conduct myself in a respectful manner as others can attest to. In return, I expect anyone to consider the post/statement I am making as a suggestion.
Whether you agree or not, it's completely up to you. But at least we can keep the discussion clean, can we not?
This is why when I was asked by Sensei in a group PM as to why it's not a public discussion, I replied " I want to keep it clean and uninterrupted.".....I digress
SusieQQQ
Well-Known Member
You've got a whole lot of assumptions in that, but that entirely misses the point I made about your original post that I responded to. You made a statement about the visa office being unfair to Africa in the Nacara reallocation. I pointed out they are not at all obliged to reallocate any of the Nacara visas. Every official statement you have read for DV since whenever Nacara was brought in tells you there are 50k DV visas available. Yes they usually give more but they don't have to. So your statement that the Nacara allocation to Africa is unfair is just wrong, because any allocation to any other region is more than "fair" given that the obliged allocation is zero. Understand now?
Anxiety2015
Active Member
I know Mom, Sussie, Simon have been reading and allow me to point out the following:
If not, I will continue to express my view, present fact/calcualtions (and stand corrected) and benefit FROM all of you regardless of your agreement.
- I am presenting an relevant argument to those who has AS CN10000+
- I am, to the best of my knowledge, respectful
- I have, at proper timing give credits to those who help me (including Simon)
- I have presented fact/calculation and separate feeling /emotion to the best of my ability
If not, I will continue to express my view, present fact/calcualtions (and stand corrected) and benefit FROM all of you regardless of your agreement.
Anxiety2015
Active Member
That criticism is well accepted, Sussie.
However, I must respectfully disagree considering the following.
The assumptions are based on the lack of known law/procedure regarding unused NACARA visa.
In fact, I have considered the rule under INA for redistribution of visas under the DV program.
So the key of our debate here is whether the 5k reserve for NACARA a part of the DV allocation
or
it's a different pool all together.
My point is, from the below USCIS yearbook screenshot, reads" Since 1999,5000 of those visas have been allocated for use if needed under NACARA, making the curret diversity limit 50,000 plus unused NACARA visas
Sussie, would you reconsider after this statement regarding a obligation to redistribute unsed NACARA visa in of the above and attachment?
Link: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/FSDiversityLPR2004.pdf
As to why I am making this argument, well, this will dramatically change the visa available to the AS region, from about 2000(all), to 300(proportion) to none.
Note: How they re-distribut the unused visas is not documented in INA. There's is the general clause on how the distribut/re-distribut under INA 203(c). So I took the liberty to apply the same re-distribution calculation.
Attachments
Last edited:
Britsimon
Super Moderator
By the way Simon, have I at least once use negative words on you such as :extremely disingenuous, dance like a bumble bee...
As far as I can recall, I didn't
Have I at least once doubt yours/anyone's characters?
As far as I can recall, I didn't
If I did, in any shape of form, offended anyone. I can say for sure I didn't intent to and probably it's my tasteless jokes.
At the very least, I tried to conduct myself in a respectful manner as others can attest to. In return, I expect anyone to consider the post/statement I am making as a suggestion.
Whether you agree or not, it's completely up to you. But at least we can keep the discussion clean, can we not?
This is why when I was asked by Sensei in a group PM as to why it's not a public discussion, I replied " I want to keep it clean and uninterrupted.".....I digress
I am keeping it clean - if you take offence at my characterization of your behavior, that does not mean I am not keeping it clean.
You are consistently and deliberately ignoring the points I have made - and instead of answering those points you bring up something else. That is the bumble bee comment - referring to how the great boxer described avoiding taking a punch.
Were you insulted by my use of the word disingenuous? Well sorry you felt insulted - but that is exactly how I see your behavior. The politician speech is exactly what you are doing - and I think you know it - which is why I say you are being disingenuous.
Look - you have been at this for two days now - and quite honestly I am tired of it.
I am not trying to say whether it is right or wrong, whether Nepal or Iran deserves what you see as special treatment. I am purely trying to explain to those that want to understand about why this happens. As I wrote earlier I explained in one sentence the whole thing. I have explained that in many ways. I have backed up assumptions and illustrated the rules with data. I have explained why AF in relation to Egypt and Ethipia is different, and so on. But really, none of it seems to sink in. So let me say this:-
KCC are not deciding any of this management of the situation. The rules determine the behavior, so nothing we come up with as a suggestion can possibly change anything because KCC cannot wake up one day and say - oh yeah - that would be better. I'll restate the rules that they are working within.
- Anyone is free to enter if they are from an eligible country.
- Every person within the region has the same chance of being selected.
- Rank order is important not in terms of processing but in terms of the allocation of visas.
- Not everyone will respond and not everyone will be approved.