• 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.

For those that like to argue about statistics...

Is there anyway to work out what the disqualification % is per sector? Does the KCC or whomever is in charge ever give statistics of dups and fraud per year?
 
mijoro said:
Is there anyway to work out what the disqualification % is per sector? Does the KCC or whomever is in charge ever give statistics of dups and fraud per year?
Click to expand...

No we can't we can only guess on the previous years rates !
But sloner says its the soft ware tthat everything.
The failure and succes rate is a humain variable ! Not runed by a computer but sloner doesn't GET it!
 
vladek15425 said:
I want to know what is in your opnion, how much visa will be given for each region?
Af
Eu
As
Sa
Oc
Because you always come with different numbers!?
Click to expand...

It just follows the calculation formula of INA 203 (c). I made once the calcs myself and ended up with 32% for the EU region
 
House409 said:
I believe they proceed to #1 and #3 simultaneously for each region (all entrants get a number, which is the reason why there are so many digits in the CN numbers), then they go through #4 (disqualify fraudulent entries creating holes in the sequence), and then decide up to which CN number they notify people.
Click to expand...


Yeah I could see that. I think Raevsky explained the process once based on testimony gathered during the 2012 lawsuit, so yes perhaps it is how you are saying...
 
AF, EU and OC should get around 80% of all DV visas, because they are low admission regions and high admission regions (SA, NA and AS) represent around 80% of all other immigrant visas subject to numerical limits.

Then, this 80% allotment is split between AF, EU and OC pro rated with the population of each region.

EU for instance represents 40% of the total population of EU+AF+OC, hence 32% (80% x 40%) of all DV visas.
AF represents around 60% of the population of these 3 regions, and should get up to 50% of all DV visas,
Etc...
 
vladek15425 said:
Simon : Give us the totalsof your sheet on this thread just that? Only by region its more than enough I want it for the record.
Click to expand...

I've given these in post 9, as these - 23000:10300:18200:1600:1800 but that was assuming NACARA gets none. However, I'll stick my neck out with some ranges as Sloner has done.

Af - 22000 to 23500
Eu - 16500 to 18500
As - 9500 to 10500
Sa - 1600 to 1900
Oc - 1300 to 1600
 
So glad we have this thread for the arguments - we should have done this long ago rather than clutter up the other threads...
 
britsimon said:
Yeah I could see that. I think Raevsky explained the process once based on testimony gathered during the 2012 lawsuit, so yes perhaps it is how you are saying...
Click to expand...

And that would nullify the concept of a second random draw. They just notified higher CN numbers some years, to get more winners and enabling them to fill as much as possible the quotas.
 
House409 said:
EU for instance represents 40% of the total population of EU+AF+OC, hence 32% (80% x 40%) of all DV visas.
AF represents around 60% of the population of these 3 regions, and should get up to 50% of all DV visas,
Etc...
Click to expand...
in 2003,2004,2005 EU took 44/45/40% of total visas for all regs. does it mean that in those years EU had 53/54/48% of total population of EU+AF+OC?
 
House409 said:
And that would nullify the concept of a second random draw. They just notified higher CN numbers some years, to get more winners and enabling them to fill as much as possible the quotas.
Click to expand...

Yeah I do think that the 2nd draw is more a reveal of already drawn selectees - i.e. hidden winners.
 
House409 said:
And that would nullify the concept of a second random draw. They just notified higher CN numbers some years, to get more winners and enabling them to fill as much as possible the quotas.
Click to expand...

Not sure i was very clear on that one. I meant they are sometimes selecting higher CN numbers (usually in October) when they see the selection in May is probably not enough to fill the quota. I dont think they did that for DV14 as the 140k selectees should be probably enough.
 
rocky72 said:
in 2003,2004,2005 EU took 44/45/40% of total visas for all regs. does it mean that in those years EU had 53/54/48% of total population of EU+AF+OC?
Click to expand...

Let's not confuse quotas with results. A region may fail to fill its quota - particularly in the years where they were not selecting enough "winners"
 
Nope, obviously. But how do you interpret the rules then?

Excerpt from INA 203 (c):

(ii) For low-admission states in low-admission regions. - Subject to clauses (iv) and (v), the percentage of visas made available under this paragraph to natives (other than natives of a high-admission state) in a low-admission region is the product of-


(I) the percentage determined under subparagraph (C), and

(II) the population ratio for that region determined under subparagraph (D)(ii).
 
britsimon said:
Let's not confuse quotas with results. A region may fail to fill its quota - particularly in the years where they were not selecting enough "winners"
Click to expand...
sure ,
i would believe ,that quota for EU in past years was around 16k if somebody show me the EU case which wasn't been invited for interview due to EU reached its quota (except of countries which reached 7% quota) Has anybody heard about this case?
meanwhile in the years when EU had reached its quota , and wasn't been current at the end of fiscal year , in those years EU took 20k and more visas.
 
House409 said:
Nope, obviously. But how do you interpret the rules then?

Excerpt from INA 203 (c):

(ii) For low-admission states in low-admission regions. - Subject to clauses (iv) and (v), the percentage of visas made available under this paragraph to natives (other than natives of a high-admission state) in a low-admission region is the product of-


(I) the percentage determined under subparagraph (C), and

(II) the population ratio for that region determined under subparagraph (D)(ii).
Click to expand...

I guess the answer to my question is just below:rolleyes:


(iv) Redistribution of unused visa numbers. - If the Secretary of State estimates that the number of immigrant visas to be issued to natives in any region for a fiscal year under this paragraph is less than the number of immigrant visas made available to such natives under this paragraph for the fiscal year, subject to clause (v), the excess visa numbers shall be made available to natives (other than natives of a high-admission state) of the other regions in proportion to the percentages otherwis e specified in clauses (ii) and (iii).
 
Let's not confuse quotas with results. A region may fail to fill its quota - particularly in the years where they were not selecting enough "winners"
Click to expand...
Let's not.:) Why spoil approval Semen. Africa has always dominated.
DV-1995 DV-1996 DV-1997 DV-1998 DV-1999
Region
Africa 20.200 20.426 20.623 21.179 21.409
Asia 6.837 7.087 7.187 7.280 7.254
Europa 24.549 24.257 23.910 23.213 23.024
NA 8 8 8 8 8
SA 2.589 2.407 2.455 2.476 2.468
OC 817 815 817 844 837
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top