DV-2015 winners from Asia with CN 10,000+

[Anxiety2015]

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.

1. Anyone is free to enter if they are from an eligible country.
2. Every person within the region has the same chance of being selected.
3. Rank order is important not in terms of processing but in terms of the allocation of visas.
4. Not everyone will respond and not everyone will be approved.

What I mean by keeping it clean is pure discussion/law/rules/numbers/quota/calculations. No reference to character or behavior unless I am offensive in my language of course. Hence my question, have I been offensive/hateful to a country or person?

I understand you are tired, that's the side effect of arguments.

I acknowledge and agree to the points you've made regarding the rule, after the rules are the rules regardless of fairness.
In terms of "bring(ing) up something else" it's about covering all angle of an argument.

However, I cannot agree to the fact the calculation/illustration depicts false information. The numbers and calculation is factual, what you make of it is up to you.

I also cannot agree with your statement of my illustration being "obviously from one perspective and extremely slanted". All illustration must at least take one perspective or it becomes baseless, right?

I never said any of this will change how the DV program is run. In my opinion, it brings light to the situation we face regardless and
winner with high CN number can act according to what they make of the calculation.

At the end, we can agree to disagree. I think we are also drifting into 2 different direction here.
You have made valid points to how the law operates and get applied, in turn explain the reality. No argument there.
I have made an illustration about the very same law regarding country max and it's effect to regional quota.
Fairness,opinion and character aside, I don't see anything wrong with both. They both explain what we see based on known law, fact , number and calculation.

 

[EURO2014]

Quite.
At some stage, possibly not in a too distant future, Nepal will eventually become categorized as an inelligible country for DV purposes, given relatively high previous admission rates, as has been the case for Bangladesh, Nigeria and many, many other countries with high immigration rates. In view of the ongoing murky discussion you guys are having, let me apriori point out that this is not something I personally wish to happen, but rather an event that would have a significant impact on DV ROA folks down the road...

 

[DV4ROGER]

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?

9 FAM 42.33 NOTES

[...] and as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas (DV) can be made available for use under the NACARA program.

Apart from the number 5,000 the NACARA law itself states that

In no case shall the reduction under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year exceed the amount [...]

What follows is a second upper bound for the reduction – based on the total of the reductions in available DV visas for all previous fiscal years – to the effect that the permissible reduction for DV-2015 could well be close to zero.
So the NACARA allowance is not 5,000 (anymore) and the 50k+ DV visas are to be allocated in agreement with INA 203(c).

 

[Anxiety2015]

Quite.
At some stage, possibly not in a too distant future, Nepal will eventually become categorized as an inelligible country for DV purposes, given relatively high previous admission rates, as has been the case for Bangladesh, Nigeria and many, many other countries with high immigration rates. In view of the ongoing murky discussion you guys are having, let me apriori point out that this is not something I personally wish to happen, but rather an event that would have a significant impact on DV ROA folks down the road...

Thanks for joining in Euro.
That makes the 2 of us, who would not wish Nepal to be excluded.
I have been trying to stress all along, it's not about fairness nor bad wishes, just about observations and calculations.

If I remember correctly, the INA states the exclusion of a single state(high admission state) from DV if they have exceeded 50K visa in the last 5 fiscal year.
Nepal is no where close to this. It has taken 19665 visas in the past 5 years
2 points I must stress:

1. I know this table doesn't include AOS and I am sure you would agree AOS would not be that many visa anyway.
2. This table probably include IR , refugee, asylum and SB...classes which is not numerically controlled. If they don't have 20K including these, they won't have 20K without.

The table: http://travel.state.gov/content/dam...014AnnualReport/FY14AnnualReport-TableXIV.pdf

 

[Britsimon]

9 FAM 42.33 NOTES

[...] and as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas (DV) can be made available for use under the NACARA program.

Apart from the number 5,000 the NACARA law itself states that

In no case shall the reduction under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year exceed the amount [...]

What follows is a second upper bound for the reduction – based on the total of the reductions in available DV visas for all previous fiscal years – to the effect that the permissible reduction for DV-2015 could well be close to zero.
So the NACARA allowance is not 5,000 (anymore) and the 50k+ DV visas are to be allocated in agreement with INA 203(c).

I calculated previously that the NACARA program was using a very small number - just a few hundred per year.

 

[Anxiety2015]

I calculated previously that the NACARA program was using a very small number - just a few hundred per year.

Please refer to Table 7 under - http://www.dhs.gov/yearbook-immigration-statistics-2013-lawful-permanent-residents
There are 2 numbers specifically for Nacara. The top one is for the employment visa sec 202, the latter one is the DV class sec 203.

I have looked through previous years, and it looks like the number used for Nacara has been dropping since DV2009. As of the latest (yr 2013), Nacara used up 1606. The couple hundred you referred to from the Employment class sec 202.

Please correct if I'm wrong.

 

[Anxiety2015]

Please refer to Table 7 under - http://www.dhs.gov/yearbook-immigration-statistics-2013-lawful-permanent-residents
There are 2 numbers specifically for Nacara. The top one is for the employment visa sec 202, the latter one is the DV class sec 203.

I have looked through previous years, and it looks like the number used for Nacara has been dropping since DV2009. As of the latest (yr 2013), Nacara used up 1606. The couple hundred you referred to from the Employment class sec 202.

Please correct if I'm wrong.

Forgot to mention, if you add up the table VI for DV
http://travel.state.gov/content/dam...014AnnualReport/FY14AnnualReport-TableVII.pdf

and

NACARA (visa type Z15) under INA sec 203 from table 7 here
http://www.dhs.gov/yearbook-immigration-statistics-2013-lawful-permanent-residents

You will get about 54.5K each year (except the mess of 2012), which is very close to the limit.
My calculation was done months back so I am flying by memory again, please correct if mistaken.

 

[Britsimon]

Please refer to Table 7 under - http://www.dhs.gov/yearbook-immigration-statistics-2013-lawful-permanent-residents
There are 2 numbers specifically for Nacara. The top one is for the employment visa sec 202, the latter one is the DV class sec 203.

I have looked through previous years, and it looks like the number used for Nacara has been dropping since DV2009. As of the latest (yr 2013), Nacara used up 1606. The couple hundred you referred to from the Employment class sec 202.

Please correct if I'm wrong.

Your link didn't work, but I am aware of the two classes 202/203. I have written about this before in a number of posts like this.
http://forums.immigration.com/threads/dv13-stats-released.319453/page-5#post-2330992

 

[Anxiety2015]

202 refers to employment base. 203 refers to diversity visa.
The program NACARA is complicated. But as far as I understand, NACARA gets up to 5000 visas from employment since 2002, and up to 5000 from diversity since DV99.

It's definitely not a couple hundred like you said. The lowest was 1606 visas (under sec 203 visa type z15)in yr 2013.
The link refers to a bunch of tables, it's table 7 i'm referring to - see jpeg attached

 

[Britsimon]

202 refers to employment base. 203 refers to diversity visa.
The program NACARA is complicated. But as far as I understand, NACARA gets up to 5000 visas from employment since 2002, and up to 5000 from diversity since DV99.

It's definitely not a couple hundred like you said. The lowest was 1606 visas (under sec 203 visa type z15)in yr 2013.
The link refers to a bunch of tables, it's table 7 i'm referring to - see jpeg attached

So you haven't bothered to read my link then. I was explaining the offset repayment in those post and also mentioned that sec 203 was not numerically limited. So - my hypothesis then was that we could ignore 203 - which is why I quoted the sec 202 number. I'm not going to spend further time on that - feel free if you wish to do so.

 

[Anxiety2015]

So you haven't bothered to read my link then. I was explaining the offset repayment in those post and also mentioned that sec 203 was not numerically limited. So - my hypothesis then was that we could ignore 203 - which is why I quoted the sec 202 number. I'm not going to spend further time on that - feel free if you wish to do so.

Actually I read it some time ago, but I just read it again to refresh my memory.

Like you had suggested in the other post, i looked for the link about the program (for those who are interested) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Adjustment_and_Central_American_Relief_Act
Quote from the wiki site "Section 202 deals with Nicaraguans (~95% of Section 202 beneficiaries) and Cubans (~5%), whereas Section 203 deals with Salvadorans (~65% of Sec. 203 beneficiaries), Guatemalans (~30%), and former Soviet Union nationals (~5%). "

Another quote from an old CRS report for Congress -
Beginning in FY1999, the number of aliens who may be granted immigrant visas under the diversity program for low-immigration areas is to be reduced by the following: one-half of the number of covered Salvadorans and Guatemalans receiving relief the prior fiscal year minus the total number of reductions in diversity visas for all previous fiscal years. However, in no event may reductions in any year exceed 5,000

So I'm pretty sure 203 is the one concerning DV. Different countries , do you see?

As to your point about numerically limited, i'm not sure...
Going back to the wiki link. See how up to 2005, NACARA 203 handed out 122,xxx visas?
I read a few government reports before, and the figure was about 250k registered Salvadorans and Guatemalans to NACARA back in 199x. So I'm not so sure if all NACARA registrants are exhausted by now?

 

[Anxiety2015]

202 refers to employment base. 203 refers to diversity visa.
The program NACARA is complicated. But as far as I understand, NACARA gets up to 5000 visas from employment since 2002, and up to 5000 from diversity since DV99.

It's definitely not a couple hundred like you said. The lowest was 1606 visas (under sec 203 visa type z15)in yr 2013.
The link refers to a bunch of tables, it's table 7 i'm referring to - see jpeg attached

Correction - I was wrong about the 202/3 classes in the above. This is not the INA, instead it is sec 202/3 of NACARA.

The sec 203 of NACARA is non-numerically controlled in itself as Simon suggested, however, it has an impact on an numerically controlled program (DV)

It is my understanding that the government do not want to hand out too many non-numerically controlled visas by reducing the numerically controlled visa availability.

As seen in the Congressional report quoted above, sec 203 of NACARA has direct impact on DV program which should not be ignored

 

[vanchandavy]

Hey hey, Devy. I appreciate your kindness in doing this. I, however, am not doing my own predictions since March, when I figured my goose was up for cooking. (this "goose" citation goes out to my friend and accountant @johnelliot344 )
I am not sure if you can upload an excel to this forum.
You say the agents negotiate for money after an interview?
As for the public charge, do your best to find AoS, and start saving today.

Hi San !! The agent negotiate the winner from the beginning . in one condition, it stated that if the winner of lottery pass the interview or get green card, they need to pay 7000$ to 10000$ to agent. it's very common in Cambodia if agent have the case number of winner.
I really have lot of thing to ask about public charge, in Cambodia Embassy, it seems the Affadivit of Support I-134 form is a must-have and I don know which way i should choose to get affidavit of support from my Uncle in USA or prove myself with bank statement or property.
What do you mean to find AOS San ??? thank you

 

[EURO2014]

Thanks for joining in Euro.
That makes the 2 of us, who would not wish Nepal to be excluded.
I have been trying to stress all along, it's not about fairness nor bad wishes, just about observations and calculations.

If I remember correctly, the INA states the exclusion of a single state(high admission state) from DV if they have exceeded 50K visa in the last 5 fiscal year.
Nepal is no where close to this. It has taken 19665 visas in the past 5 years
2 points I must stress:

1. I know this table doesn't include AOS and I am sure you would agree AOS would not be that many visa anyway.
2. This table probably include IR , refugee, asylum and SB...classes which is not numerically controlled. If they don't have 20K including these, they won't have 20K without.

The table: http://travel.state.gov/content/dam...014AnnualReport/FY14AnnualReport-TableXIV.pdf

You are welcome. By the way, in my understanding the requirement for DV inelligibilty is more than 50,000 immigrants of any given country over the last 5 years, counting all IV categories...

 

[siliconeslinger]

They really don't care if the AS visas are Mostly going to Nepalese and Iranians, they just don't give a s*** so long as they reach their regional quota..

 

[Anxiety2015]

You are welcome. By the way, in my understanding the requirement for DV inelligibilty is more than 50,000 immigrants of any given country over the last 5 years, counting all IV categories...

Totally agreed, 19665 visas (plus AOS) is no where close to 50000.
I hope this is helpful to Nepalese winner down the road.

 

[Anxiety2015]

They really don't care if the AS visas are Mostly going to Nepalese and Iranians, they just don't give a s*** so long as they reach their regional quota..

What can I say, the rule is the rule.
We cannot change it.
We are just trying to understand it from different angles

Which I must add the fact: Nepal cannot take more than 7% country max, but they will NOT be excluded in the near future unless the rule or their immigrrant visa shoots past 50k in 5 years.

Just the facts here.

 

[siliconeslinger]

Quite.
At some stage, possibly not in a too distant future, Nepal will eventually become categorized as an inelligible country for DV purposes, given relatively high previous admission rates, as has been the case for Bangladesh, Nigeria and many, many other countries with high immigration rates. In view of the ongoing murky discussion you guys are having, let me apriori point out that this is not something I personally wish to happen, but rather an event that would have a significant impact on DV ROA folks down the road...

It will happen in the next several years.. Nepal has taken up too many visas it's unfair.. How is it diversity when the asia regional visas are mostly taken up by nepalese and iranians?

Nepalese cases are the perfect recipe for disaster for roa

-extremely high entries
-extremely high response rate
-extremely high approval rate

 

[siliconeslinger]

What can I say, the rule is the rule.
We cannot change it.
We are just trying to understand it from different angles

Like i said.. If you win with a cn above 10k

Its like the ultimate f*** you in the face from KCC.. Worse than not selected at all

 

[EURO2014]

Totally agreed, 19665 visas (plus AOS) is no where close to 50000.
I hope this is helpful to Nepalese winner down the road.

Yep, additional upside for folks from Nepal... 7% max country limit is not necessarily an extreme issue for smaller countries in my pov.