• Hello Members, This forums is for DV lottery visas only. For other immigration related questions, please go to our forums home page, find the related forum and post it there.

DV 2016 OC Selectees

Hi folks - new member here, from Sydney, with a 9xx number. Been reading various bits of these forums over the last few days, and very appreciative of the passive help you've provided.

So, a question looking for some active help!

On the DS-260, the form asks, following Current Employment, whether you have been previously employed. I have, so I ticked Yes.

The system then opens another sub-form, asking you to include details of all previous jobs in the last decade. However! I've been at the same employer (in different roles) for 13 years. Should I: enter the same employer over and over again, with full details of every role; enter the same employer once and leave the role details blank; tick "no" instead because - despite wording - they only want to know about the last ten years; or something else I haven't thought of?

The 2002 start date on the current employer should indicate that the whole decade is covered, if that's what they're asking.

(I tried going through to the next page without filling in details of previous employers, as that was the most technically accurate way of answering, but the system won't let you do this.)

Thanks in advance, folks!
 
innerwestern said:
Hi folks - new member here, from Sydney, with a 9xx number. Been reading various bits of these forums over the last few days, and very appreciative of the passive help you've provided.

So, a question looking for some active help!

On the DS-260, the form asks, following Current Employment, whether you have been previously employed. I have, so I ticked Yes.

The system then opens another sub-form, asking you to include details of all previous jobs in the last decade. However! I've been at the same employer (in different roles) for 13 years. Should I: enter the same employer over and over again, with full details of every role; enter the same employer once and leave the role details blank; tick "no" instead because - despite wording - they only want to know about the last ten years; or something else I haven't thought of?

The 2002 start date on the current employer should indicate that the whole decade is covered, if that's what they're asking.

(I tried going through to the next page without filling in details of previous employers, as that was the most technically accurate way of answering, but the system won't let you do this.)

Thanks in advance, folks!
Click to expand...

You need to use your own judgement on this one. Depends if the role changes were big or not or just title change for the same job etc. I put in a couple of entries for the same role on mine.
 
Personally, I listed everything. Which made for a long list as I'd been promoted in one company three times so there were three separate entries for that one company alone. I just felt better providing as much detail and not leaving them to to wonder about anything.
 
We put the current employer from the original date (as it was the same employer for a large amount of time) and then listed the individual positions and dates as well in the individual positions. I think it is better to give enough information rather than not enough :)
 
eskimokisses said:
@Hershal yes we have just started looking at Texas as well around Houston, Dallas, Austin......woke up this morning to see the shooting in Texas eeek !

Agree it is hard to make a decision without visiting first. We have school age children so we are thinking we might have to try and rent in the area that we wish to eventually buy so we don't have to move schools several times but I guess we wait and see.
Click to expand...

Yeah it was a bit scary that shooting, but I don't let it get to me! My wife went me the article first thing in the morning. We will have a 4 month old when we move so although we don't have school aged children we still want to find a nice peaceful area. Been searching trulia.com a lot to get ideas and prices of areas. We are now thinking of buying about 2-3 acres of land and waiting, (well I am) wife likes the idea of a horse property and I think Texas would be ideal. Wide open spaces would be nice.
 
Just as an idle observation, many of the previous Australian winners have expressed one particular thing about the U.S. that they don't like, being the gun culture. Particularly in light of that, it is indeed very interesting to see the interest in Texas (one of the most strident pro "right to bear arms" states) among this year's batch!
 
SusieQQQ said:
Just as an idle observation, many of the previous Australian winners have expressed one particular thing about the U.S. that they don't like, being the gun culture. Particularly in light of that, it is indeed very interesting to see the interest in Texas (one of the most strident pro "right to bear arms" states) among this year's batch!
Click to expand...

Quite. Texas not really a good place for anti gun folks. Or vegetarians. Or eco-worriers. Or people that think cowboy hats are silly.
 
SusieQQQ said:
Just as an idle observation, many of the previous Australian winners have expressed one particular thing about the U.S. that they don't like, being the gun culture. Particularly in light of that, it is indeed very interesting to see the interest in Texas (one of the most strident pro "right to bear arms" states) among this year's batch!
Click to expand...

Yeah, how relaxed gun control is in the U.S. is definitely one thing I really don't like about the country. It's particularly unfathomable to us Aussies since only a couple of decades ago after we had a mass shooting, a conservative Prime Minister introduced wide-sweeping gun control reform. And we haven't had a mass shooting since.
 
SusieQQQ said:
Just as an idle observation, many of the previous Australian winners have expressed one particular thing about the U.S. that they don't like, being the gun culture. Particularly in light of that, it is indeed very interesting to see the interest in Texas (one of the most strident pro "right to bear arms" states) among this year's batch!
Click to expand...

I felt more unsafe in an Arizona cinema than I did in the Bronx. Angry young boys flying off the rails with AR-15s is not my idea of a positive cultural milieu.
 
connectedspace said:
I felt more unsafe in an Arizona cinema than I did in the Bronx. Angry young boys flying off the rails with AR-15s is not my idea of a positive cultural milieu.
Click to expand...
Yeah well for some people no state taxes and lower property prices apparently offset things like that ;)
 
It's still early days, but anyone care to speculate about how the low number of OC selectees (1500) this year may impact the rate numbers will go current? :p Considering we haven't even seen a CN above the 900s yet, I can't imagine they'd be starting off like DV2015 with 400 in October.

The year OC seem to be closest to in terms of the number of selectees is DV2011 (which had about 1600), but that year the CN's that went current were above 1460... So, were there more gaps between CN's that year than there could be this year?
 
It's difficult to say. I think the starting number has more to do with how many ds260s are ready to go by the time they publish the bulletin. The pace of progress, on the other hand, probably has more to do with the quota for this year. Regarding the gaps, I'd say <8% of the case numbers are holes. That works out: if the ratio of selectees to case numbers is the same as last year's, then the highest CN will be around 990, which is in line with observations so far.

Now I'd say there's a good chance the 900s won't go current until September. So if OC goes current this year (there's no guarantee), the progress could be something like:

Oct: 200
Nov: 275
Dec: 325
Jan: 400
Feb: 475
Mar: 550
Apr: 625
May: 700
Jun: 775
Jul: 850
Aug: 925
Sept: current

Now, we've seen accelerating rates of take-up of the visa opportunity in OC over the past few years. In 2013 we had 0.51 visas issued per CN. In 2014, it was 0.53. This year it's likely to wind up around 0.58 or even higher. If that trend continues, we could see 0.66 visas per CN in 2016, which could put the upper 900s in danger if the quota is low enough.

I'm very sure that only 1500 people in OC were selected for a reason, and I doubt that reason is to make the region go current in June!

Edit: I also think that the higher the proportion of selectees from Australia and NZ, the fewer the number of selectees needed to fill quota. And I don't think that relationship is linear!

There could easily come a time where for a quota of 760 visas, the region needs fewer than 1000 selectees. Possibly much fewer.
 
Last edited:
connectedspace said:
It's difficult to say. I think the starting number has more to do with how many ds260s are ready to go by the time they publish the bulletin. The pace of progress, on the other hand, probably has more to do with the quota for this year. Regarding the gaps, I'd say <8% of the case numbers are holes. That works out: if the ratio of selectees to case numbers is the same as last year's, then the highest CN will be around 990, which is in line with observations so far.

Now I'd say there's a good chance the 900s won't go current until September. So if OC goes current this year (there's no guarantee), the progress could be something like:

Oct: 200
Nov: 275
Dec: 325
Jan: 400
Feb: 475
Mar: 550
Apr: 625
May: 700
Jun: 775
Jul: 850
Aug: 925
Sept: current

Now, we've seen accelerating rates of take-up of the visa opportunity in OC over the past few years. In 2013 we had 0.51 visas issued per CN. In 2014, it was 0.53. This year it's likely to wind up around 0.58 or even higher. If that trend continues, we could see 0.66 visas per CN in 2016, which could put the upper 900s in danger if the quota is low enough.

I'm very sure that only 1500 people in OC were selected for a reason, and I doubt that reason is to make the region go current in June!

Edit: I also think that the higher the proportion of selectees from Australia and NZ, the fewer the number of selectees needed to fill quota. And I don't think that relationship is linear!

There could easily come a time where for a quota of 760 visas, the region needs fewer than 1000 selectees. Possibly much fewer.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that issued visas per CN thing is a good indicator at all. It is only useful historically, not predictive at all because it places importance on holes. 1500 people could be spread over 2000 cases or 1000 cases - the only difference is holes. Yuk. We can apply the response and success rates to the selectees. By July we will have a perfect per country response rate (though slightly impacted by DS260 processing times). By the end of the year we will also have a perfect issued rate although OC is still small statistically. The country makeup is impactful as you point out, so we should apply those things per country. Once we do that I would not be at all surprised if OC comes out at very close to going current just with rough math, 1500 sounds very doable given the low response rate.

Your yearly VB layout looks good. In DV2015 the DS260 backlog caused a higher start and slower finish. In some regions that was very pronounced, but was not too bad in OC. Given less selectees overall and two weeks extra processing to start with, I am hopeful that DS260 will be a much less significant factor in DV2016.
 
Britsimon said:
I don't believe that issued visas per CN thing is a good indicator at all. It is only useful historically, not predictive at all because it places importance on holes. 1500 people could be spread over 2000 cases or 1000 cases - the only difference is holes. Yuk.
Click to expand...

True, but haven't holes per CN been consistent over the past couple of years?

Once we do that I would not be at all surprised if OC comes out at very close to going current just with rough math, 1500 sounds very doable given the low response rate.

Your yearly VB layout looks good. In DV2015 the DS260 backlog caused a higher start and slower finish. In some regions that was very pronounced, but was not too bad in OC. Given less selectees overall and two weeks extra processing to start with, I am hopeful that DS260 will be a much less significant factor in DV2016.
Click to expand...

With any luck!
 
Britsimon said:
I don't believe that issued visas per CN thing is a good indicator at all. It is only useful historically, not predictive at all because it places importance on holes. 1500 people could be spread over 2000 cases or 1000 cases - the only difference is holes. Yuk. We can apply the response and success rates to the selectees. By July we will have a perfect per country response rate (though slightly impacted by DS260 processing times). By the end of the year we will also have a perfect issued rate although OC is still small statistically. The country makeup is impactful as you point out, so we should apply those things per country. Once we do that I would not be at all surprised if OC comes out at very close to going current just with rough math, 1500 sounds very doable given the low response rate.

Your yearly VB layout looks good. In DV2015 the DS260 backlog caused a higher start and slower finish. In some regions that was very pronounced, but was not too bad in OC. Given less selectees overall and two weeks extra processing to start with, I am hopeful that DS260 will be a much less significant factor in DV2016.
Click to expand...
Hi Simon, just curious to know whether you think there will be another small draw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top