Sensei-san
Active Member
I am not big on Affidavits myself. Do you mean the income would have to be 100% of the guideline for the family of 4, plus 100% of the guideline for the family of 2?
It comes out as 48,500 then.
DV-2015 winners from Asia with CN 10,000+
- Thread starter Elmar
- Start date
It comes out as 48,500 then.
Sm1smom
Super Moderator
For AOS purpose, the sponsor's family of six (the uncle, wife and 4 kids) plus the DV selectees family of 2 makes it a family of 8 like Sensei previously stated above.
Sm1smom
Super Moderator
And because Cambodia is keen on the issue of AOS, I would actually recommend going by USCIS's requirement of 125% above poverty guideline which makes the required income slightly over $51K for a family of 8:
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-864p.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-864p.pdf
SusieQQQ
Well-Known Member
Ok. Good to know that - makes a sizable difference in the funds required.
vanchandavy
Member
Hi San and @Sm1smom My uncle make only about 30000$ a year from his job but his wife has their own salon shop .i don know about their income of salon shop cos they just open for less than 6 mont. In this point ,I don know if I should request my uncle to fill Affidavit of support for me and my wife or request his wife to fill the affidavit of support instead . Or both can fill the affidavit of support for us..
vanchandavy
Member
i read on the US Embassy of Cambodia website , it lists affidavit of support I-135 form.
I don have any idea when embassy in my country is very strict on Affadavit of support and mostly lot of people is refused during interview of Affadavit of support . Example now I have my own car and my own house with my wife and saving about 20000$ . Should I bring the document to embassy during interview with or without Affadavit of support ?
Anxiety2015
Active Member
Sussie, I can respect that you disagree.
I must also point it out it is NEVER about fairness, probably sounds like a broken record now.
All this discussion/calculation I have made is for me (others) to understand if the situation from last year re AF will/can happen to AS since they called a low number.
Although this would change the outcome, folks can still react/plan differently.
hmm... that's not what I see.
First, NACARA program grants AOS for asylees from specific countries - Nicaragua, Cuba, Salvadors, Guatemala, former Soviet bloc.
I don't know for sure which specific NACARA section applies to DV, or if it's any NACARA (refer to my earlier post #331)
Also to add in the mix, NACARA recipients also use EB3 (up to 5000) per fiscal year.
From what I have gathered, it seems sec 203 of NACARA has 5 sub section, namely A to E
If you look at the form I881, there's the qualifying criterion of the 5 sub sections. D is what we are concerned with.
Then if you look at Appendix E sub section D drawing visa out of DV and sub section E is drawing out of employment.
1st paragraph in this link:
http://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/FY2002 app E.pdf
Confusion aside. Let's make the hypothesis (not using the word assume) that the NACARA Cumulative report contains the correct figure -
Looking at the report 6-21-99 Through 01-31-15/02-28-15/03-31-15
- the number you see is a case, it does not include the dependents
- the total pending is increasing (ie 491 in Jan, 470 in Feb, 499 in Mar). I haven't done much reading on AOS, but pending could mean that applications have been filed, but interview and/or adjudication has not been made. So this number does not look like the total numbers remaining in NACARA.
- The number that made sense to me is 'Grants' which probably means they got approved visa Z15- I had browsed through previous years, and it's climbing at a steady rate. And I do see there is a higher number of grants between Jul to Sept for some fiscal years (similar to what we see in DV?)
Overall, it's a good snapshot of what we can gather for NACARA, but it's not indicative of how many is being used in the DV program. That number is NOT broken down by sub section a-e
However, the number from LPR statistic is more clear - I had pasted the figures below.
As discussed in post #331, I do not consider sec 202.
Refer to last column (sum of 203 & DV).
WAIT, why is 2010 exceeding 55k?
- I agree with Simon about the non-numerically control in 203, for asylum and refugee status.
- not all (only sub sec d) NACARA grants will be assigned under DV, some may go under EB3 (only sub sec e ,as far as I know)
what's evident is that NACARA counts have been dropping significantly (from 5 digits to the thousand we see today, but probably not quite in the 3 digits yet based on the calculation illustrated in a congressional report, quoted in my previous post)
To sum it up - although the law and DoS webpage says 50k is the numeric limit for any DV program year.DHS year book has confrimed the limit for DV is 50k plus unused NACARA returns - see quote/link and screenshot from previous post.
Based on the published NACARA figures and the trend, we know that NACARA as a whole is nowhere close to 5000. Even if NACARA takes 1000-3000 in 2015, we should see DV handouts exceeding 50k <this is what the VO did in recent years, and I believe he will continue to do so (ie give back unused visas to DV as stipulated in the DHS yearbook, probably as an internal procedure). As a matter of fact, we don't know if NACARA is near the end, and if so we may see 55K for DV in the near future, but sadly probably not this year.
Attachments
Last edited:
Anxiety2015
Active Member
To clarify the above, consider the actual issued and quota separately.
Background (links and report in previous posts)
Actual issued (DV + NACARA 203) - this is illustrated with the attachment above with the following unknown:
NACARA quota reduction from DV(55k):
Background (links and report in previous posts)
- We know only 3 groups of nationals are eligible to take from DV(55k) under sec 203 of NACARA.
- None are to taken from DV(55k) under sec 202 - previous post, note different countries under 202 vs 203
- You have to be sec 203 (d) to take under DV(55k), if you are 203 (e) you take from EB3 (employment class)
- Sec 203 of NACARA(visa Z15) is not numerically limited in itself - simply meaning visa Z15 can take as many as they qualify in a given year
- Only a part of all visa Z15 takes from DV(55k) - Z15 include 203 (a-e), just 203(d) matters to our discussion
- Of the sec 203(d) of all Z15 visa, only 5000 can be accounted for from DV(55k) - If they take 8k, only 5k can be reduced from DV
Actual issued (DV + NACARA 203) - this is illustrated with the attachment above with the following unknown:
- Derivatives are not shown in the cumulative report(some case could be family of 1, some family of 5) but shown only in the LPR report
- Sub sections are NOT broken down anywhere, we are only concerned about subsection d, the reports are showing combined a-e
- The attachment is , therefore, NOT illustrating only cases are under sub section d. With no breakdown, we assume all are sub section d (feel free to guess by changing the numbers)
NACARA quota reduction from DV(55k):
- Only calcualtion I can find is from this congressional report
- "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"
- Salvadorans and Guatemalans and Soviet Bloc are sec 203 (concerning DV) , Cuba and Nacarauga are sec 202 (NOT related to DV at all)
SusieQQQ
Well-Known Member
Anxiety, I can't read all that beyond the line when you say you want to point out "it is never about fairness". But you used the word fair in the original post I responded to, and that was exactly why I responded. All else in this discussion has just been noise quite frankly. You said it's not fair that AF doesn't get more of Nacara. yes, that's what you said, so why now come and say it's not about fairness when that was your beef in the first place?
I'm done with this, I'm off to enjoy my 4th of July.
I'm done with this, I'm off to enjoy my 4th of July.
Anxiety2015
Active Member
Thanks Sussie, in my pov, its a good discussion.
Thanks for joining in.
Enjoy your July 4th.
If you are done at this point, you can ignore the following.
For those who do:
1 question: Has it ever occur to you fair can be used for proper/kosher?
As in fair chance?
In original post: ...did not take their fair share of NACARA... please read as proper share, propotional equal share.
NOT, again NOT,as "this is so unfair!(emotion)"
I know we deal with whining folks sometimes in this forum, like Simon puts it.
Can we not at least once reserve our judgement and stop reading between the lines? That's all I ask.
Lastly, this is probably more than 10 times I am stressing this point. The purpose is NOT about whining, complaining or otherwise crying about unfair (emotion).
It is about understanding, reading all the supporting links/doc/arguments and make your decision on how to proceed and in turns benefit those who join/read.
At least we understand more about NACARA now then we previously did, didn't we?
Last edited:
Sm1smom
Super Moderator
Your uncle or whoever is filing out the affidavit of support will need to include an official document such as a W-2 or 1099 attesting to how much they're making, it's not just a matter of them stating on the I-134 that they're making a certain amount of income. So if you're uncle's income isn't enough to meet the poverty level guidance requirement, there's no point in his filing out the affidavit of support for you (the embassy will not accept it). If your uncle wants to claim the income from his wife's salon as additional income to make up the shortfall from his own $30K, then he needs to present form 1099 which should show that salon is making at least $20K. The affidavit has to be filled by one person.
Sm1smom
Super Moderator
My suggestion is that you still get an affidavit of support that meets the requirement in addition to presenting evidence of your personal financial records.
EURO2014
Well-Known Member
Re: Your Attachment - no wonder they noticeably increased the number of lottery winners for 2014 and 2015, following the low number of visa issued in 2012 when they could not fulfill legally defined issuing mandates (they probably would have chosen to do so for DV 2013, yet DV process time-lag did not allow for that to happen). Much better - from their pov - to have "a few" unsuccessful lottery winners, rather than to fall short on issuing mandate performance...
Anxiety2015
Active Member
Re: Your Attachment - no wonder they noticeably increased the number of lottery winners for 2014 and 2015, following the low number of visa issued in 2012 when they could not fulfill legally defined issuing mandates (they probably would have chosen to do so for DV 2013, yet DV process time-lag did not allow for that to happen). Much better - from their pov - to have "a few" unsuccessful lottery winners, rather than to fall short on issuing mandate performance...
Euro, you made a couple excellent points and I am sure you know it.
The overall quota is increasing for DV as the years progress, since more and more NACARA returned visas become available.
Naturally, they will increase the number of selectees to be on the safe side.
It is probably too late for DV2013 to change that strategy, which we saw AS going current for 2 months.
You must have also noticed the calculation is taking all subsection of NACARA 203, since we didn't have the break down.
I must agree with Sussie that they are under no obligation to hand out any visa, including the original 50k visas.
The law states a limit (50k+NACARA unused), never talks about a minimum.
I also agree with DV4Roger, when they choose to distribute visas they should follow the law re regional proportion. That throw me off quite a bit, maybe they are doing best effort only?
Personally, I would rather have them call a higher number and make sure all the visas are used.
EURO2014
Well-Known Member
There is no doubt in my mind that their objective is to use and issue all available DV's as defined, i.e 50K and whatever is left over from unused NACARA assignation. This is precisely the backdrop in my book for the significant step up of published lottery draws for DV2014 and 2015 - obviously they overdid it somewhat, but better safe than sorry if you are in their shoes. Digital DS-260 submission changed the picture somewhat by increasing response rates, hence it is to be expected to see lower published CN's going forward, starting with DV2016. No surprises here, I guess.
Anxiety2015
Active Member
Can't say it any better.
And to back that up, this is quote from multiple CRS reports:
(NACARA) temporarily reduced the 55,000 annual ceiling by up to 5,000 annually to offset immigrant visa numbers for certain NACARA beneficiaries.3 As of now, the diversity visa ceiling is still set at 50,000, and it is unclear how many more years the offset will continue.
And to back that up, this is quote from multiple CRS reports:
(NACARA) temporarily reduced the 55,000 annual ceiling by up to 5,000 annually to offset immigrant visa numbers for certain NACARA beneficiaries.3 As of now, the diversity visa ceiling is still set at 50,000, and it is unclear how many more years the offset will continue.
Sensei-san
Active Member
I concur with Sm1smom without even reading her responses. But yes, do both: Affidavit and your savings and other assets. You got pretty decent savings, own a house and a car - a lot of people in the US would not have those as liabilities.
Save some more and you are golden.
johnelliot344
Member
please stop talking to these people, i've had my experience with them as well and i haven't spoken with them again as there's no point, they do this to placate their ego as much as help people. You try your best to speak to them politely about something reasonable and they still condescend to you, it seems like they're trying to provoke an argument with their attitude
as i've stated before, you don't even have to disagree, just any IMPLICATION of disagreement will cause them to lose it, security issues i guess
if you really need information, you'll get all the information you'll ever need in 4 short days, if you want to come here, just scroll through quickly to see if there's any actual useful comments and leave.
don't get sucked into a high school girl fight with these people, good luck in 4 days
ps: i admire your restraint in your responses
Anxiety2015
Active Member
Certain words evoke different emotions and meanings. Particularly this last week before final VB is revealed, senses and emotions are heighened (at least on my part).
For members who are here to learn - some of the direct conversation on personal feelings/views (on the topic of faireness), please skip those. DV information and useful links I provided, this is my effort to help others (current/future winners).
For winners who see fault in my approach - so you won't go down the same path as I did.
The stakes are high for the winners in this lottery, most of us try to understand the rules of the game and we make plans accordingly to maximize our chance of approval. Obviously it's game over if CN isn't getting called in the final VB.
We have experienced past winners and/or knowledgeable members who voluntarily guide us thru the process. And for that, I admire and value their efforts and inputs.
In the end of the day, whether my service is of any usefulness to anyone, I have no regret to what I know and happy to share.
To those who are tired of my lengthy post, will depart in the next 5 days when it's game over for me. Farewell and you won't hear from me again.
Last but not least, Good luck to us ALL!
For members who are here to learn - some of the direct conversation on personal feelings/views (on the topic of faireness), please skip those. DV information and useful links I provided, this is my effort to help others (current/future winners).
For winners who see fault in my approach - so you won't go down the same path as I did.
The stakes are high for the winners in this lottery, most of us try to understand the rules of the game and we make plans accordingly to maximize our chance of approval. Obviously it's game over if CN isn't getting called in the final VB.
We have experienced past winners and/or knowledgeable members who voluntarily guide us thru the process. And for that, I admire and value their efforts and inputs.
In the end of the day, whether my service is of any usefulness to anyone, I have no regret to what I know and happy to share.
To those who are tired of my lengthy post, will depart in the next 5 days when it's game over for me. Farewell and you won't hear from me again.
Last but not least, Good luck to us ALL!
Sensei-san
Active Member
I sucked at school girl fights too. Gosh, the girls are strong these days, I wonder what they eat.please stop talking to these people, i've had my experience with them as well and i haven't spoken with them again as there's no point, they do this to placate their ego as much as help people. You try your best to speak to them politely about something reasonable and they still condescend to you, it seems like they're trying to provoke an argument with their attitude
as i've stated before, you don't even have to disagree, just any IMPLICATION of disagreement will cause them to lose it, security issues i guess
if you really need information, you'll get all the information you'll ever need in 4 short days, if you want to come here, just scroll through quickly to see if there's any actual useful comments and leave.
don't get sucked into a high school girl fight with these people, good luck in 4 days
ps: i admire your restraint in your responses
But yes, 4 days before we, my faithful goose and I, dramatically fade away into the sunset of the final VB.