DV 2021 Oceania Selectees

Britsimon

Super Moderator
#41
Hi all - apologies for the mini essay but I've tried to do some analysis on the historical CEAC data from DV2017-20 and tried to make some sense of the numbers. Take this with a grain of salt given how much uncertainty is associated with the numbers and how things change year to year but thought I would share it as it may be helpful to some one out there. Appreciate any input/feedback from the helpful experts out there if they have it. I suggest skipping to the bottom if numbers aren't your thing.

I've tried to work out the success rate of a case number i.e. the probability that an actual CN (i.e. not a hole) in a given year will either be issued a visa/visas or their case number becomes current. I think this is a good metric because it takes the year-to-year change in the holes rate out of consideration, for the most part. It is also conservative as no all the Ready status became Issued status.

On average in DV17-20: of the OC case numbers that became current, ~55% didn't respond, ~15% were refused visas and ~40% were successful. The success rate fluctuated between 38%-45%.

In DV21, there are 2815 selectees and the highest known case is ~3350. Assuming a derivative rate of 1.65 (selectees / applicant; based of previous years and Brit Simon guidance) then the number of actual cases / total cases is 51% (i.e. the hole rate is 49%).

Assuming there are 800 visas available for OC in DV21 (again this is an assumption and it fluctuates year to year; 800 is per Brit Simon), we can work out the numbers of case numbers required to fulfill the visa quota:

800 visas / 1.65 = 485 winning case numbers required
485 winning cases / 40% success rate = 1212 actual cases required
1212 actual cases / 0.51 (i.e. 1 - hole rate) = 2470 total cases required

So based on these assumptions the cutoff case number will be about 2470.

This number will be lower if the hole rate is lower, the success rate is higher and the issued OC visas is lower. Likewise it will be higher if the hole rate is higher (i.e. higher maximum CN), success rate is lower and OC visas issued is higher.

I don't think the hole rate will be any lower because a case number of ~3350 is known (unless thats not valid). The hole rate in DV20 was 59% vs. my assumption of 49% so I think its conservative (note the assumed derivative rate cancels itself out in my calculations so the assumption isn't a factor i.e. lower rate increases the # of winning cases required but lowers the hole rate). So the key variables are the success rate and the numbers of visas issued.

If the success rate is 45% and visas issued is 700 then the max CN is 1,920
If the success rate is 38% and visas issued is 850 then the max CN is 2,763

So this gives a range of 1900-2800.

I appreciate there are a lot of assumptions and anything can happen (e.g. Trump, embassies shut etc) but hopefully this helps. I'm heeding to the mantra of wait-and-see (with my fingers crossed) but also realistic that success is guaranteed (my case number is a touch over 2000).

Happy to answer any questions or hear any flaws in my methodology and good luck to everyone.
That's pretty optimistic.
 
#42
That's pretty optimistic.
Thanks for the insight - where do you think I'm being optimistic?

The assumed max case number of 3350 may be too high but not out of the question given someone on this forum has said they are OC3251.

My hole rate is high due to the assumed derivative rate but this is irrelevant (as is the hole rate for that matter). Just need to know applicants per case number.

The assumed success rate is based on historical rates.

You note in your video that applicants from some countries in the SA region may struggle to get to the embassies for interviews or have to financial means to migrate to the states so the success rate will likely be low. The same could be said for the OC region with some a high portion of applicants from the pacific islands.
 

Britsimon

Super Moderator
#43
Thanks for the insight - where do you think I'm being optimistic?

The assumed max case number of 3350 may be too high but not out of the question given someone on this forum has said they are OC3251.

My hole rate is high due to the assumed derivative rate but this is irrelevant (as is the hole rate for that matter). Just need to know applicants per case number.

The assumed success rate is based on historical rates.

You note in your video that applicants from some countries in the SA region may struggle to get to the embassies for interviews or have to financial means to migrate to the states so the success rate will likely be low. The same could be said for the OC region with some a high portion of applicants from the pacific islands.
Your result is optimistic. So it doesn't matter where the math is on the optimistic side, but the result shows there is something too high.

The factors you mention are not new this year, unlike SA. Its like you are gathering little bits of optimism from everywhere.
 
#44
Your result is optimistic. So it doesn't matter where the math is on the optimistic side, but the result shows there is something too high.

The factors you mention are not new this year, unlike SA. Its like you are gathering little bits of optimism from everywhere.
I beg to differ - I've relied solely on the facts and the historical visa success rate from those eligible for interviews for my analysis. I brought up the Pacific Islands statement to provide support for the historically low success rate in OC.

Theres no doubt that the middle to top end of my range is optimistic but that is the point of a range - to account for uncertainty in the variables.

I appreciate all the work you do to educate DV winners about the process and i think you do a very good job at explaining the process. But keep your flippant comments to yourself if you're not going to provide support to your statements.
 

Britsimon

Super Moderator
#45
I beg to differ - I've relied solely on the facts and the historical visa success rate from those eligible for interviews for my analysis. I brought up the Pacific Islands statement to provide support for the historically low success rate in OC.

Theres no doubt that the middle to top end of my range is optimistic but that is the point of a range - to account for uncertainty in the variables.

I appreciate all the work you do to educate DV winners about the process and i think you do a very good job at explaining the process. But keep your flippant comments to yourself if you're not going to provide support to your statements.
Well up until that last sentence I was going to say you are very welcome to differ, and its all a guessing game anyway, but your last sentence was uncalled for, and idiotic. Just because someone disagrees with you, there is no need to spit out your dummy.
 
Last edited:
#46
I think a lot of winners in Australia and New Zealand will probably have a much harder think about whether they really want to live in the US than they would have during any other year, even though Australia is being quite North Korea at the moment by not letting anyone leave.
 

Britsimon

Super Moderator
#47
1
I think a lot of winners in Australia and New Zealand will probably have a much harder think about whether they really want to live in the US than they would have during any other year, even though Australia is being quite North Korea at the moment by not letting anyone leave.
Yes agreed, not just about the pandemic travelling difficulties, but also political and economic issues such as jobs recovery after the pandemic.
 

SusieQQQ

Well-Known Member
#48
1


Yes agreed, not just about the pandemic travelling difficulties, but also political and economic issues such as jobs recovery after the pandemic.
Finances allowing of course this may lead to a larger proportion of selectees from developing countries vs developed countries in general pursuing their visas. The US in a pandemic and amid political issues may still look a lot better than where many of the former come from, a very different situation to those coming from Aus/NZ etc.
 
#49
Hello all,

I just checked the September VB and it also listed out "the statistical breakdown by foreign state of chargeability of those registered for the DV-2021 program". I was curious if this represented the number of selectees from OC and I took a calculator and added them up which turns out to be 2815. This doesn't really make sense as my CN is OC3XXX. Could someone explain the meaning behind this data, and how this published data would mean for high CN selectees? Thank you!
 

SusieQQQ

Well-Known Member
#50
Hello all,

I just checked the September VB and it also listed out "the statistical breakdown by foreign state of chargeability of those registered for the DV-2021 program". I was curious if this represented the number of selectees from OC and I took a calculator and added them up which turns out to be 2815. This doesn't really make sense as my CN is OC3XXX. Could someone explain the meaning behind this data, and how this published data would mean for high CN selectees? Thank you!
Google britsimonsays holes theory
(not trying to be unhelpful, it’s your fastest route to a lot of good info)
 
#51
Google britsimonsays holes theory
(not trying to be unhelpful, it’s your fastest route to a lot of good info)
No, I did not take it the wrong way, certainly do not want to waste anyone's time just because I didn't take the time to do my homework. However, after reading the holes theory, I have two possible conclusions, and if you wouldn't mind clearing up my confusion and tell me which is right, that would be much appreciated:

1. The number published on the Sept VB represents the number of visas the government will issue to that region, so it has nothing to do with the case numbers. The doors will close as soon as the number of visas issued hits 2815 (the number I got for summing up all countries in OC)

2. The computer assigns the case numbers first, then goes through the elimination process of fraudulent entries, hence creating the "holes". Having a CN of OC3XXX still means that I am somewhere amongst the 2815 cases, because within the 2815 cases, all the false entries have already been removed. To figure out what is the true selected case numbers, I still need to multiply 2815 by a factor, which is calculated based on previous data.


Thanks for your time.
 

SusieQQQ

Well-Known Member
#52
You almost have it in 2, but not quite. 2815 is the number of people selected in the OC region (including derivatives). The number of actual cases will be somewhat less than that (depending what the average number of derivatives per case is, example if there average 2 people per case there are 1408 actual cases). The fact that case numbers are somewhere more than the actual number of cases is because invalid cases have been deleted after selection - creating the holes.
 
#53
You almost have it in 2, but not quite. 2815 is the number of people selected in the OC region (including derivatives). The number of actual cases will be somewhat less than that (depending what the average number of derivatives per case is, example if there average 2 people per case there are 1408 actual cases). The fact that case numbers are somewhere more than the actual number of cases is because invalid cases have been deleted after selection - creating the holes.
Many thanks!
 
Top