Kayend
Active Member
What interest me is that why Ghana never in the special cut off? So what is the criteria of being in a special countries category?
DV13 stats released!!!
- Thread starter House409
- Start date
What interest me is that why Ghana never in the special cut off? So what is the criteria of being in a special countries category?
Yes I still don't understand the process very well. may be others can give explanation
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Ghana was not subjected to an artificial limit of around 6000 like other countries. Immediately that should show us that it didn't have the overwhelming numbers of entrants as countries like Nigeria. However, if we look at the entries data by country for 2013 you can see an odd thing with Ghana. In 2013 it had a massive number of entries but a completely unrealistic ratio of entries to derivatives. They had 908k entries and only 147k derivatives. That sounds unreal to me - the number of derivatives is normally around 1 for each entry. What I think has happened in 2013 (and probably repeated in 2014) is a massive number of fraud cases - entered as single. This would have led to large numbers of disqualifications and that is why they only got 3900 selectees in 2014.
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/DV_Applicant_Entrants_by_Country_2007-2013.pdf
vladek15425
Well-Known Member
We discused that with simon few months ago and realy don't remember what was his idea
About it I even mentioned cameroun I think.
One column is missing. total minus special countries (non-special countries)
There are a few years when nacara was not part of quote. 55000 were available for DV, 7% is 3850. The real amount of visas per county those years never exceeded 3859. I would attribute those 9 for babies at most. I would also say 9 is max for babies allother years as well.
Now it's included
For Dv-2014, Nigeria hit its limit at 8000, EGY arround 13000 and ETH 19000 (may be). Ghana seems not yet. So what do you think guys
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Yeah it can't be many babies - we are talking about babies born AFTER interview but BEFORE entry to US - so agreed - a tiny number.
As far as I remember, Ghana had special cut-off many years ago. At least 2003 through 2008
Last edited by a moderator:
I noticed that Ethiopia had 3,774 visas issued in 2010, which would be even more than Iran in 2013. That might give you a lead on figuring out the basis for the 7%.
How many visas were allocated to NACARA in that year?
vladek15425
Well-Known Member
I calculated 1086 nacara visa for 2011 !
Nacara 202 was 248, Nacara 203 - 3705 for 2010. And 3774/7% = 53914. If they include Nacara 203, then 7% is violated. If they include only 202, it is not violated. Also, there was no announcement that year that Ethiopia hit the limit. So, the limit could have been even higher, 53914 or even more.
In DV-13 we know Iran hit the limit, so we are more or less sure that 7% was taken from amount 3741/7% = 53443 (minus a few babies), not more than that. So I do not quite understand what exactly is included into the number from what 7% is taken.
In DV-13 we know Iran hit the limit, so we are more or less sure that 7% was taken from amount 3741/7% = 53443 (minus a few babies), not more than that. So I do not quite understand what exactly is included into the number from what 7% is taken.
158 nacara 202 and 3223 nacara 203 for 2011.
Thanks vladek. Where do you get the number from?
Britsimon
Super Moderator
I think this is too much of a moving target for them to be sure of limiting the numbers quite as precisely as you are suggesting. KCC don't have the aos numbers exactly right, they don't have immediate numbers back from tall the embassies on the last day of every month regarding cases issued, APs resolved and so on, and they would probably not have the exact NACARA used numbers. So I think there could be some approximations going on - don't you think? That would explain to me why Iran was closed down abruptly around the 20th of September - they probably only had those numbers a few days before. It has also taken them several months to publish the results from DV2013 - again suggesting the numbers need some final counts and adjustments....
Rafik, I think Egypt is twice in yout Totals column. Please check...
I found these stats regarding NACARA. They were pulled from the 2003 statistics, appendix E. Here is the link:
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003 AppE.pdf
Unfortunately, I was unable to find any more recent document. It is 10 years old but it is interesting as it shows how the DV and Employment Preference visas are used to offset NACARA adjustments.
Do you think they only use DV visas for NACARA 202 or 203, or both?
What do you mean by moving target? DV visa numbers? Or NACARA figures?
I think they might get NACARA data with some delay. But KCC/NVC is the authority that issues visa numbers, so consulates can issue visas only after they get visa number from NVC (I think for DV it is KCC but I am not 100% sure). So, if you are talking about NACARA numbers as moving target, they are moving slowly. And it is even much more slow after you take 7%.
If you are talking about DV visa numbers, they are supposed to issue them at KCC/NVC first. Then consulate could deny a visa, and those numbers go back to KCC for recycling to be assigned to someone else. So, when KCC says all Iranian visas are taken, that means no recycling is possible (so, visas were actually issued), and the number of NACARA cannot decrease. Also, they need to have a procedure to make sure if NACARA increases, the 7% limit that has already been hit does not go down because of that.
Somehow, by Sept 20th they could be sure no more NACARA would be issued - too little time left, and USCIS might tell them the figure is final.
If that all happens differently, not the way I just described, why without NACARA they had 3859 max? If it is difficult for them to track precise number of visas, why they did not have major differences (more than 9) versus 3850 when NACARA was not present? Am I understanding you wrongly? Is not it true that all you are saying should be equally applicable for the years prior to 2000 (when NACARA was not part of equation, and they had just one moving target instead of two)?
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Yes I we agree that NACARA information could be slow.
Then is AOS controlled by NVC? OK I agree they are supposed to account for visas ahead of time but AOS is particularly difficult for them top track. KCC only get one 122 form - and they probably take the derivatives count from there but actual births could make a larger difference on AOS because AOS cases are handed off much earlier than CP cases (so more time for babies, marriages and so on).
I checked the World Bank number for "Crude birth rate" and some countries are approching 50 births per 1000 people per year.
Obviously where this counts most is for CP cases (the majority of cases) where in some countries I could imagine 50 births multiplied by 3.5 divided by the post interview prior to entry window - so rather than the 9 births we have discussed I could see that number being 70/80. You could also throw in a few marriages also as they could in theory get married and get a visa after interview and before entry.
Overall the lack of precision troubles me but doesn't surprise me. I think they need two or three months after the end of the year to issue a report because they also need to let the dust settle.