• 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.

Putting the CEAC data into words...

Britsimon

Britsimon

Super Moderator
Raevsky was able to gather the CEAC data for 2013 and posted the results on the Wikipedia page for the DV lottery. Firstly well done to Raevsky for doing that.

The CEAC data does not include all embassies and does not include people doing adjustment of status (which represents around 5% of cases). Nevertheless it can give an insight into this DV lottery to see why USCIS select so many "winners".

So putting the numbers into words....

Of the selectees only about 34% globally returned their 122/230 forms. The rest decided they did not want to continue the GC process for whatever reason.

Some people (around 4% of selectees) sent the forms in (so about 12% of the 34%) but never attended their interviews. That change of mind was most common in Europe.

Globally the refusal rate (people who attended interviews but were refused) is about 13% of the 34% that sent their forms in. However, most of those refusals (by far) were from the Africa region (21% of those that had interviews). Refusals for other regions were far lower (7% for EU and 6% for AS).

4% of cases globally remained in AP at the end of the year. That was twice as likely to happen in Asia or Africa compared to EU or OC.

In terms of visas issued, there were only 24221 selectees finally successful (meaning nearly 46,000 visas being issued including family members.

With the inclusion of Aos the non CEAC embassies I guess they were close to but under the 50k number at the end...

This year, there are just over 30% more winners selected, but with fall out rates as shown above that would only yield about 7/8k extra successful winners if there was no cap. The global cap will mean, as is widely accepted, that some people will miss out - and several regions may not go current (or the region might go current but interviews will either not be scheduled or will be cancelled after scheduling. August and September next year is going to be a nailbiting time for a lot of people.
 
Summarize very well, Britsimon. Just take the max case # for any region and if your case # is within the end 30% that is consider the risky range but don't get me wrong I am not saying within the risky range have no chance for interview. What I am saying is within the risky range a bit more luck and see how the dv14 play out. Even the non risky range not guarantee an interview if the dv14 doesn't play out like dv13.
 
Thanks britsimon. The fallout rates look high, although - at the end of the day out of what was it, 110k selectees, they still managed to issue close to 50k visas from what you've posted. That indeed doesn't bode well for people with higher numbers, who will be fervently hoping that the fallout rates are even higher this year...

Do you know which embassies are not CEAC? (And indeed, why are there embassies who are not CEAC?!)

Also, it's useful (if not exactly heartening) to confirm that there are a good number of cases where the AP doesn't get done in time and people lose out - there's a lot of "don't worry they rush it all at end of FY" on the forums which can give people real false hope.
 
This is total speculation on my part, but I think AP is quite an arbitrary process that depends largely on personal judgment of the officers involved. Let's say your name is Osama al-Zawahiri; they will almost certainly put you through AP. When some derogatory information turns up, they will reject your application. If nothing negative is found, they are still not going to rush approving you. The rash of people in AP that got approved in the last days means the state dept wants to postpone the decision as long as possible. When they are reasonably convinced that no new information will turn up and it's close to the deadline, then they rush to approve the cases.

Well, at least for DV there's a firm deadline. Other people subjected to AP can wait for years.

Read this story: http://usat.ly/1aZ2BO8
These are Iraqis who were helping Americans, and in some cases saved American lives. They still have to wait years for visas.
 
SusieQQQ said:
Thanks britsimon. The fallout rates look high, although - at the end of the day out of what was it, 110k selectees, they still managed to issue close to 50k visas from what you've posted. That indeed doesn't bode well for people with higher numbers, who will be fervently hoping that the fallout rates are even higher this year...

Do you know which embassies are not CEAC? (And indeed, why are there embassies who are not CEAC?!)

Also, it's useful (if not exactly heartening) to confirm that there are a good number of cases where the AP doesn't get done in time and people lose out - there's a lot of "don't worry they rush it all at end of FY" on the forums which can give people real false hope.
Click to expand...

CEAC is fairly new and I guess some consulates were not able to implement it. Raevsky has in the past mentioned that Uzbekistan and Armenia are not in CEAC - so there could be large chunks of winners not included - but the percentages should be similar.

I have questions over the CEAC data such as how high the issued visa count can be with the addition of non CEAC consulates - but for now I'm taking it at face value because some data is better than none.
 
Hexa said:
This is total speculation on my part, but I think AP is quite an arbitrary process that depends largely on personal judgment of the officers involved. Let's say your name is Osama al-Zawahiri; they will almost certainly put you through AP. When some derogatory information turns up, they will reject your application. If nothing negative is found, they are still not going to rush approving you. The rash of people in AP that got approved in the last days means the state dept wants to postpone the decision as long as possible. When they are reasonably convinced that no new information will turn up and it's close to the deadline, then they rush to approve the cases.

Well, at least for DV there's a firm deadline. Other people subjected to AP can wait for years.

Read this story: http://usat.ly/1aZ2BO8
These are Iraqis who were helping Americans, and in some cases saved American lives. They still have to wait years for visas.
Click to expand...

I agree to some extent that AP is sometimes (not always) arbitrary and happens way more often in countries where there are terrorism concerns/fears. However, world events (such as the Boston bombings) will surely increase the liklihood of AP cases in countries that were easier before....

To be fair some people might stay in AP for their own choice. For example, one of the winners this year was interviewed in early October and placed on AP to get more money to prove he won't become a public charge. I'm sure he will resolve it, but if he didn't his case would simply remain in AP right until the end.
 
So,

britsimon said:
CEAC is fairly new and I guess some consulates were not able to implement it. Raevsky has in the past mentioned that Uzbekistan and Armenia are not in CEAC - so there could be large chunks of winners not included - but the percentages should be similar.

I have questions over the CEAC data such as how high the issued visa count can be with the addition of non CEAC consulates - but for now I'm taking it at face value because some data is better than none.
Click to expand...


Concerning the increment in the winners this year than last year what do you think the highest CN for Africa and Egypt (the last year was around 23000)?
 
britsimon said:
I agree to some extent that AP is sometimes (not always) arbitrary and happens way more often in countries where there are terrorism concerns/fears. However, world events (such as the Boston bombings) will surely increase the liklihood of AP cases in countries that were easier before....

To be fair some people might stay in AP for their own choice. For example, one of the winners this year was interviewed in early October and placed on AP to get more money to prove he won't become a public charge. I'm sure he will resolve it, but if he didn't his case would simply remain in AP right until the end.
Click to expand...

Well, when you have more choices, of course you will be more choosy. I think this year AP will be more than last year in %, for one simple reason. More choices this year.
 
britsimon said:
I agree to some extent that AP is sometimes (not always) arbitrary and happens way more often in countries where there are terrorism concerns/fears. However, world events (such as the Boston bombings) will surely increase the liklihood of AP cases in countries that were easier before....

To be fair some people might stay in AP for their own choice. For example, one of the winners this year was interviewed in early October and placed on AP to get more money to prove he won't become a public charge. I'm sure he will resolve it, but if he didn't his case would simply remain in AP right until the end.
Click to expand...

Well, when you have more choices, of course you will be more choosy. I think this year AP will be more than last year in %, for one simple reason. More choices this year.
 
Hexa said:
This is total speculation on my part, but I think AP is quite an arbitrary process that depends largely on personal judgment of the officers involved. Let's say your name is Osama al-Zawahiri; they will almost certainly put you through AP. When some derogatory information turns up, they will reject your application. If nothing negative is found, they are still not going to rush approving you. The rash of people in AP that got approved in the last days means the state dept wants to postpone the decision as long as possible. When they are reasonably convinced that no new information will turn up and it's close to the deadline, then they rush to approve the cases.

Well, at least for DV there's a firm deadline. Other people subjected to AP can wait for years.

Read this story: http://usat.ly/1aZ2BO8
These are Iraqis who were helping Americans, and in some cases saved American lives. They still have to wait years for visas.
Click to expand...

This isn't at all the impression I've got. There are certain checklists - sometimes completely beyond the control of the person involved, like where they live - which requires more intensive background checks and these people are then put into AP.

How quickly people forget how much flack USCIS has come under for, for example, the Boston bomber. People are quick to blame DoS but given the attempted and actual terrorist attacks on US soil it's understandable. Not nice for the vast majority of innocent people who get caught up in it, but the blame should lie with the terrorists, not with the people in USCIS who don't want to allow possible more terrorists in.

Also, I'd say the rash of people approved at the end shows that they actually are trying to get through as many as they can rather than just allowing these people's applications to lapse.
 
britsimon said:
CEAC is fairly new and I guess some consulates were not able to implement it. Raevsky has in the past mentioned that Uzbekistan and Armenia are not in CEAC - so there could be large chunks of winners not included - but the percentages should be similar.

I have questions over the CEAC data such as how high the issued visa count can be with the addition of non CEAC consulates - but for now I'm taking it at face value because some data is better than none.
Click to expand...

For FYs 2010 to 2012 there were commonly 3200-3500 DVs issued for Uzbekistan per year, so it definitely makes a difference in the numbers. Armenia was 600 in DV2012 (and remember a lot of countries were low in that year) but around 1000 in the two preceding years.

So it's quite likely that these two countries alone added another 4000-4500 visas to your total of almost 46000, which adding in the AOS visas means it is extremely likely the 50k was reached, indeed that it may have been exceeded by making use of some of the NACARA allocation?

http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY12AnnualReport-TableVII.pdf

As a aside the drop from 7-10 years ago in countries like Lithuania, Romania and Bulgaria to more recently is very interesting - I'm assuming the prospects of EU accession also brought the prospect of moving for a better life closer to home...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SusieQQQ said:
For FYs 2010 to 2012 there were commonly 3200-3500 DVs issued for Uzbekistan per year, so it definitely makes a difference in the numbers. Armenia was 600 in DV2012 (and remember a lot of countries were low in that year) but around 1000 in the two preceding years.

So it's quite likely that these two countries alone added another 4000-4500 visas to your total of almost 46000, which adding in the AOS visas means it is extremely likely the 50k was reached, indeed that it may have been exceeded by making use of some of the NACARA allocation?

http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY12AnnualReport-TableVII.pdf

As a aside the drop from 7-10 years ago in countries like Lithuania, Romania and Bulgaria to more recently is very interesting - I'm assuming the prospects of EU accession also brought the prospect of moving for a better life closer to home...
Click to expand...

Yep Susie the Uzbekistan and Armenia numbers (plus other embassies that are probably not in CEAC) is troubling. I think NACARA could provide some extra but there is something odd about the numbers. The 46k is very high... Raevsky might be able to shed some light on why the numbers are so high...

Regarding the newer EU countries - yes absolutely, people in those countries have a much easier upgrade path now...
 
As far as I can see the data that you are referring too does include visas issued in both Erevan and Tashkent, so I don't think these two blockbuster countries are the reason why the numbers does not add up yo the 50,000 that we all expected. I think something is off as the highest eu cn is only 30532. Considering the cut off in July was 33000 and current for August and September.
[


QUOTE=SusieQQQ;2656902]For FYs 2010 to 2012 there were commonly 3200-3500 DVs issued for Uzbekistan per year, so it definitely makes a difference in the numbers. Armenia was 600 in DV2012 (and remember a lot of countries were low in that year) but around 1000 in the two preceding years.

So it's quite likely that these two countries alone added another 4000-4500 visas to your total of almost 46000, which adding in the AOS visas means it is extremely likely the 50k was reached, indeed that it may have been exceeded by making use of some of the NACARA allocation?

http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY12AnnualReport-TableVII.pdf

As a aside the drop from 7-10 years ago in countries like Lithuania, Romania and Bulgaria to more recently is very interesting - I'm assuming the prospects of EU accession also brought the prospect of moving for a better life closer to home...[/QUOTE]
 
Ok, I just went by what britsimon said about the CEAC embassies, I didn't inspect the spreadsheet myself to see what was in there.
Your comment about the Europe numbers is interesting... This is the same spreadsheet that claims AF numbers ended below what some people had reported getting visas on too.
 
SusieQQQ said:
Ok, I just went by what britsimon said about the CEAC embassies, I didn't inspect the spreadsheet myself to see what was in there.
Your comment about the Europe numbers is interesting... This is the same spreadsheet that claims AF numbers ended below what some people had reported getting visas on too.
Click to expand...

This is the one posted to Wikipedia - so I don't know if there is a better one available. Apologies for the confusion over the missing embassies - I should have checked first, but this was something that Raevsky had said. Perhaps they were updated to CEAC later than other embassies? I don't know.

Regarding the strange highest numbers. Agreed the EU ones look odd, then Asia stopping below 11k and these possible AF ones Susie. I don't know about that - again perhaps Raevsky can explain...
 
Does the whole number 140660 notified selectees will show on the CEAC ?

No! because only the ones that sent form that will appear.

After 5 months of DV process the CEAC shows 30k passed the interview, and 16 visas were given out.

For 7 months CEAC shows only 40k scheduled for an interview.

So how many responded with forms based on the data we have up to now?

Is there a huge fall-out?

Is the CEAC reliable ?

How do you interpret it ? Bad news or good news ?
 
vladek15425 said:
Does the whole number 140660 notified selectees will show on the CEAC ?

No! because only the ones that sent form that will appear.

After 5 months of DV process the CEAC shows 30k passed the interview, and 16 visas were given out.

For 7 months CEAC shows only 40k scheduled for an interview.

So how many responded with forms based on the data we have up to now?

Is there a huge fall-out?

Is the CEAC reliable ?

How do you interpret it ? Bad news or good news ?
Click to expand...

If purely based on CEAC data, it definitely a good news. As you pointed out 30k selectees interviewed only generate 16k visas. If the the same pattern continue, it need 90k selectees interview scheduled. 140k - 90k, we only need 50k non response selectees. So, all regions will be current. :) hope things are this simple.

Of course, Late responses to KCC and AP cases might destroy the all regions go current dream but possibility is stil there even is a very slim one.
 
vladek15425 said:
After 5 months of DV process the CEAC shows 30k passed the interview, and 16 visas were given out.

For 7 months CEAC shows only 40k scheduled for an interview.

So how many responded with forms based on the data we have up to now?

Is there a huge fall-out?

Is the CEAC reliable ?

How do you interpret it ? Bad news or good news ?
Click to expand...

I think you need to see where 2013 data were at the same times to draw any conclusions.
 
SusieQQQ said:
I think you need to see where 2013 data were at the same times to draw any conclusions.
Click to expand...

Exactly right.

Incidentally the original post contains a glaring in accuracy, the 34% of selectees responding was because at the time, I like some other, thought the 140k did not include family. It does. So, the number of responses in 2013 CEAC data was 66k. We knw that CEAC was about 10% short, so the real responses was around 70/75k out of the 110k. If the same pattern happens in 2014 (which I believe it will) around 45/50k will not respond at all.

Out of those that respond, around 20% will not show up for interview and around 15% will be denied visas. Those numbers are globally but regions and countries vary.

In the end, I believe around 60/65k people want visas and would get them if no limits were set, so about 10k will miss out. Some will miss out because of country cutoffs also (Nepal being the first and most definite country to hit the 7%)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top