There were a couple of very small consulates is Africa not using it. All other consulates used it by 9/30. Some data was missing though because of Sloner effect.
DV13 stats released!!!
- Thread starter House409
- Start date
Yes, it was rather laconic and pretty much said: "no more visas available, interviews cancelled, please try again if you wish with DV14, sorry for any inconvenience".
I guess some people were really really frustrated reading this.
Can you remind us what the Sloner effect is?
vladek15425
Well-Known Member
Oh OK! Thanks!
http://turkey.usembassy.gov/wn_92013.html
there is the link mate
but i still cant figure out howcome so many over the 7%
like simon says may be the new borns and new mariages but still!!!
vladek15425
Well-Known Member
sloner effect is :
the missing cases in few embassies around the world he helped raevsky to extract more (hidden)numbers, to complete his data!
right raevsky?
Britsimon
Super Moderator
It isn't over 7% if the global limit is 55,000. Since they did stop Iran, and allowing for some newborns etc I imagine they let it go to around 52k.... and 7% of that is 3640
Not all consular data was included into CEAC for the first several months of dv-13
vladek15425
Well-Known Member
i saw house 409 was pointing that out ! 7% out of 55000 but i was scared to speculate on it because its not a solid number
(55000) because we never know how much left from that 5000.
i dont know if it was my stupid thread about nacara that triggered you to find out that some of the visas gets back to the dv because if you remember i was just curiouse to understand what is nacara ~! but im glad for all of us we can still sponge some visas out of it
Thanks for the link.
I think Employment-Based category has the same wording, but I believe it is through an executive order and interpretation that they allow exceeding the per country cap if visas may go to waste.
vladek15425
Well-Known Member
i checked the 2013 data and I’m glad sloner axiom is not applicable in there !
so i guess all the software are back to normal and the dv is running again on (SKYWALKER AXIOM)
yes im introducing now new terminology in this forum for all the family friends just like raevsky
which by the way i would like to say that his own personnel data was very approximated to accuracy since
he calculated about 49k visas not 34 like sloner axiom! and since he admitted and he confirmed that its missing about 3k on previous post, because of sloner effect makes his calculation IMO very plausible and liable.
so thanks raevsky great job
now things are back to normal 2013 they operated 2nd draw + 5000 and i do believe they stayed with hand full of visas left over(nacara).
which in my opinion dv 2014 will experience the high visas granted ever and here by announcing over 52000 visas for this year will be certainly issued, according to all the infos that i collected ....
very good news for the high CN numbers.
so i guess all the software are back to normal and the dv is running again on (SKYWALKER AXIOM)
yes im introducing now new terminology in this forum for all the family friends
just like raevskywhich by the way i would like to say that his own personnel data was very approximated to accuracy since
he calculated about 49k visas not 34 like sloner axiom! and since he admitted and he confirmed that its missing about 3k on previous post, because of sloner effect makes his calculation IMO very plausible and liable.
so thanks raevsky great job
now things are back to normal 2013 they operated 2nd draw + 5000 and i do believe they stayed with hand full of visas left over(nacara).
which in my opinion dv 2014 will experience the high visas granted ever and here by announcing over 52000 visas for this year will be certainly issued, according to all the infos that i collected ....
very good news for the high CN numbers.
vladek15425
Well-Known Member
thanks for the link it makes it now clear for me that is nacara .
Britsimon
Super Moderator
This darn DV lottery messes with your head.
At one end of the scale we have estimates from Raevsky. He knows his subject, that is for sure, but I still feel his ranges are too pessimistic. Obviously I hope they are and these 2013 numbers tell me that 110k selectees were not quite able to fill the global limit which I now believe is in the very lows 50's.
At the other end of the scale there are the opinions of Sloner. He is much more optimistic for all regions and believes almost everyone will have an interview, no matter what the case number. He bases his opinions on 2012 data and makes the argument that the new software (used in that year and DV2014) made a big difference to that year and will again this year. That statement never made sense to me (bevause I absolutely believe the redraw screwed things up in that year), and recently available information from 2014 CEAC data and the newly relased 2013 data just confirms the assumption that his theory is wrong. Sorry Sloner but although I respect your opinions, I really think it is time for you to reconsider your baseline. DV2014 will not be like DV2012.
I do NOT believe much has changed with the allure of going to America between 2013 and now. The economy in America is doing slightly better, but then it is improving in other countries also. I also don't think there is much going to change with success rates. So, if 110k selectees yielded 51k selectees then I really think that 115k or perhaps 120k is the most that will be used this year and a cutoff will happen around 52, possibly 53k.
So, although it worries me to go up against so well thought out statistical analysis that Raevsky and others perform, I am coming back to my patented "Simons' super simplistic estimation method" (SSSEM) which comes up with an estimate of where your number stands on a global basis. So if your number is EU40k for instance and we take EU56k as the highest EU CN, then you are just within the top 100k of entries measured globally (40,000/56,000*100 = 71.4% and 71.4% of the 140,000 selectees is 99,960). To me, that should mean that EU40k is safe. EU44k would be roughly equivalent to the global 110,000 point - so that should be safe(ish). You can lay this game at home with your own number and your own region.
There are more scientific ways to come up with these answers (including a method I have demonstrated with 2011 data) and those more scientific ways do tell me I am being slightly optimistic with the SSSEM method BUT I am hopeful that sensible optimism will be proved right in the end.
Now, as I have said before, all we need now is for KCC start reading this forum and start doing what we expect them to do!!!!
Good luck to everyone!
At one end of the scale we have estimates from Raevsky. He knows his subject, that is for sure, but I still feel his ranges are too pessimistic. Obviously I hope they are and these 2013 numbers tell me that 110k selectees were not quite able to fill the global limit which I now believe is in the very lows 50's.
At the other end of the scale there are the opinions of Sloner. He is much more optimistic for all regions and believes almost everyone will have an interview, no matter what the case number. He bases his opinions on 2012 data and makes the argument that the new software (used in that year and DV2014) made a big difference to that year and will again this year. That statement never made sense to me (bevause I absolutely believe the redraw screwed things up in that year), and recently available information from 2014 CEAC data and the newly relased 2013 data just confirms the assumption that his theory is wrong. Sorry Sloner but although I respect your opinions, I really think it is time for you to reconsider your baseline. DV2014 will not be like DV2012.
I do NOT believe much has changed with the allure of going to America between 2013 and now. The economy in America is doing slightly better, but then it is improving in other countries also. I also don't think there is much going to change with success rates. So, if 110k selectees yielded 51k selectees then I really think that 115k or perhaps 120k is the most that will be used this year and a cutoff will happen around 52, possibly 53k.
So, although it worries me to go up against so well thought out statistical analysis that Raevsky and others perform, I am coming back to my patented "Simons' super simplistic estimation method" (SSSEM) which comes up with an estimate of where your number stands on a global basis. So if your number is EU40k for instance and we take EU56k as the highest EU CN, then you are just within the top 100k of entries measured globally (40,000/56,000*100 = 71.4% and 71.4% of the 140,000 selectees is 99,960). To me, that should mean that EU40k is safe. EU44k would be roughly equivalent to the global 110,000 point - so that should be safe(ish). You can lay this game at home with your own number and your own region.
There are more scientific ways to come up with these answers (including a method I have demonstrated with 2011 data) and those more scientific ways do tell me I am being slightly optimistic with the SSSEM method BUT I am hopeful that sensible optimism will be proved right in the end.
Now, as I have said before, all we need now is for KCC start reading this forum and start doing what we expect them to do!!!!
Good luck to everyone!
Britsimon
Super Moderator
I'm saying that things should be about the same (or slightly better than) 2013. First I am rounding the 109 and change to 110k. That is what I am saying was used in 2013 (almost no selectees missed out through any limit apart from a few in Iran).
The global limit wasn't hit by 51k - so I am suggesting that the global limit will be very slightly higher - I said low 50's - let me be more specific, and say 52k or perhaps 53k. So - nearly 5% higher than was achieved in 2013.
So Raevsky - if 109/110k underfilled the global limit in 2013 don't you think it is reasonable to assume we will need 115k selectees in 2014?
Simon, what makes you think they will give more visas in 2014. Why wouldn't they stick to the very very low end of the 50k?
Possibly. I am still not sure that world quota was not satisfied. That is just one point of view based on assumption how they got 3741 visas for Iran (calculation 3741/7% = 53.4K; luckily we know that per country max was hit for Iran this year). The number for NACARA is going to be published in USCIS yearbook. It is still not available for DV-13 - http://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics. I would not be surprised that NACARA used more that 55K-53.4K = 1.6K (because historically it used more) and in that case 3741 visas for Iran seems to be unexplained to me. I would believe overfilling quota for ~10 numbers, not more, because of children born after parents received their visas.
BTW, Kurzban http://books.google.com/books?ei=wZ...an+sourcebook&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=3850 mentions 3500 visas as max, as well as 7%. At the same time we know for sure that Iran maxed out with 3741.
Last edited by a moderator:
Britsimon
Super Moderator
I don't think 51k filled the global limit so it should be more than that - right? 500 more, 1000 more, 2000 more - I don't know - but more than 51k because they kept on going (and only stopped Iran).
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Raevsky you are indeed a mine of information. I have been searching for information on NACARA visas numbers granted to no avail - and hey presto - you provide the proof I was loooking for.
OKay, ignoring NACARA section 202 for a minute there is a clear trend on NACARA 203.
The numbers you provided show NACARA 203 visas issued as:-
2006 - 25950
2007 - 11779
2008 - 8359
2009 - 4764
2010 - 3705
2011 - 3224
2012 - 2803
In other words NACARA 203 demand is tapering off. That is exactly what I had assumed must be happening based on my understanding of what the NACARA program beneficiaries could be. In 2013 I think the number will be lower than 2803 by another few hundred (so let's say 2400) and in 2014 it will continue to taper down to say 2000. Section 202 adds ~250, but hey presto we are close to 52,500/53,000 available for DV. I don't KNOW that for sure - but I think it is a reasonable guess and would also help explain the high Iran number in 2013. As you say, perhaps not all the 3741 but getting close (and then a handful of babies).
So, since you have sort of opened the door on the 115k question earlier - then my point earlier is that you are within the first 100k or even 110k selectees you should be pretty safe. I realise my SSSEM is pretty childlike, but sometimes children get things right....