• 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.

September VB - DV14 Last Chapter

Guys when I posted above comments I didn't read any of those on page 5 on this thread. I am not trying to insult anyone and my comments are just informative.
 
Hi every one,

We already argued about the situation of my Data and Dalius one.
My data are wrong in the cases Eliolaz just mentioned, when the principal is issued, in my data all dervative are issued and in rare case they could be ready or refused,
On the other hand Dalius extract the data as it is in the CEAC website, and as Simon just said, Derivative status is not always updated according to principal status.

So we did some investigation and decided what will be the best option,
I took Dalius data of last 24 April, because it is an exact illustration of data showed on CEAC website and we found this :

459 Case where Principal ISSUED, One of derivative READY
26 Case where Principal ISSUED, One of derivative REFUSED
463 Case where Principal REFUSED, One of derivative READY

We stated that the error in my file is unsignificant statistically and the third situation we just mention shouldn't exist and it is clear error in the CEAC data itself and could be the reason of a lot of cases of the first situation too.

This is just to make things clear, and by the end its about 500 Visa difference.
 
Britsimon said:
No Eliolaz, my assumption is not totally incorrect. This has all been discussed before:-

http://forumarchive.immigration.com...-all-algerian-africa-dv2014-winner-here/page2

I assume you understand that if a main applicant is refused, all the derivatives are refused too - correct? In the same way, if the main applicant is on AP, the derivatives are on AP also - because their case can only be resolved The data used by Dalius has examples like that - and that means that CEAC is not updated correctly all the time. That cannot be argued or explained in any other way. Let us call this CASE A.

Then there are cases where the main applicant is issued but the derivatives show as ready/refused/AP. Again, those exist in Dalius' data. These are not (as I clearly explained before) all wrong/bad updates. There are some examples (such as the ones you gave and others I have seen) that could be genuine. However, there are too many of such cases to be all genuine. Given that CASE A exists, it is logical to assume that at least some of these cases exist because of the same bad process that causes the CASE A situation. My earlier reasoning was that I accepted that for the issued cases, neither method was entirely accurate, but Dalius' method is bound to be less accurate in my opinion because the wacky cases are rare.
Click to expand...

Sorry Simon I didn't saw ur post I was typing
 
Britsimon said:
No Eliolaz, my assumption is not totally incorrect. This has all been discussed before:-

http://forumarchive.immigration.com...-all-algerian-africa-dv2014-winner-here/page2

I assume you understand that if a main applicant is refused, all the derivatives are refused too - correct? In the same way, if the main applicant is on AP, the derivatives are on AP also - because their case can only be resolved The data used by Dalius has examples like that - and that means that CEAC is not updated correctly all the time. That cannot be argued or explained in any other way. Let us call this CASE A.

Then there are cases where the main applicant is issued but the derivatives show as ready/refused/AP. Again, those exist in Dalius' data. These are not (as I clearly explained before) all wrong/bad updates. There are some examples (such as the ones you gave and others I have seen) that could be genuine. However, there are too many of such cases to be all genuine. Given that CASE A exists, it is logical to assume that at least some of these cases exist because of the same bad process that causes the CASE A situation. My earlier reasoning was that I accepted that for the issued cases, neither method was entirely accurate, but Dalius' method is bound to be less accurate in my opinion because the wacky cases are rare.
Click to expand...

That is correct. When applicant main applicant is refused, all the derivatives are refused too. That is why Rafik data is more accurate when it comes to refused cases.
I would suggest just people to use eider Rafik or Dalius data when they are making their assumptions. Not to mix them like taking refused from Rafik and add them to Dalius ready and AP.
P.S. We are lucky that we have people like Rafik and Dalius to provide us with any data. So thank you guys!!!
 
Tew said:
Ethiopia's was not temporarily put in place for one month. It was there from the beginning and was only removed starting from the May numbers (or was it April? Forgot).


Malcolm X, I really hope your predictions are wrong. That would be an absolutely horrible bulletin for AF in particular. Way less than last year!!
Goodness, what a mess this year's DV is!!
Click to expand...

since Europe will take few thousands more comparing last year, for sure this will affect the others region specially Africa and for sure the CN number will be less comparing with last year.... the prediction that we have made before was based on the DV-2013 regional quotas..... if the quotas change so everything will change.... let's hope that the NACARA visas will be used for the DV, in that case we can have more..... crossing fingers ....
 
eliolaz said:
Simon your assumption is totally incorrect. When Rafik data was presented in our (Bulgarian) forum two users said strait away that data is not correct because one of them said that they could not take custody of their 2 kids witch were from previous marriage. So their kids are ready and they will stay as ready till the end of Sept. The other didn't give specific reason but it was the same story 2 issued and 2 ready wile on the data sheet there are 4 issued.
At the same time I don't know what will be your explanation about cases like EU8209 in witch the 3rd applicant is refused and first and second issued, or EU8829 where 2nd applicant is refused and 1st and 3rd issued.
Believe me it is not a mistake by CEAC. When it comes to issued visas Dalius data is more correct than Rafik's!!!
Thanks to Rafik and Dalius for their effort and the difference is not that big although 500 visas can make a huge difference even for a region like EU.
Click to expand...

I think that you are right... that's a lot for this clarification, if we check the file of Reavsky of september 2013, for Africa we have 21913 visa issued under 'family Member' cologne, but only 20899 under 'visa issued' cologne , so 1014 visa less, the ration is 95.3%

if we apply the same ration to the actual African visa on the June CEAC data we will have 12111 visa issued instead of 12695 visa, it's 584 less

if we do the same with the other region we will have:
AF= 12695 * 0.953 = 12111
EU --> 13040 * 0.9704 = 12654
AS --> 4419 * 0.9755 = 4311
SA --> 904 * 0.8123= 734
OC --> 421 * 0.723= 304
NA --> 2

the sum will be = 30116 visas.... , on the CEAC we can see 31481 visa, so it's 1365 less which will give more hope to the highest CNs

PS. Let's wait Rafik to confirm if he published the real 'family member' or the real visa issued as Reavsky did on the second cologne......
 
MalcomX said:
I think that you are right... that's a lot for this clarification, if we check the file of Reavsky of september 2013, for Africa we have 21913 visa issued under 'family Member' cologne, but only 20899 under 'visa issued' cologne , so 1014 visa less, the ration is 95.3%

if we apply the same ration to the actual African visa on the June CEAC data we will have 12111 visa issued instead of 12695 visa, it's 584 less

if we do the same with the other region we will have:
AF= 12695 * 0.953 = 12111
EU --> 13040 * 0.9704 = 12654
AS --> 4419 * 0.9755 = 4311
SA --> 904 * 0.8123= 734
OC --> 421 * 0.723= 304
NA --> 2

the sum will be = 30116 visas.... , on the CEAC we can see 31481 visa, so it's 1365 less which will give more hope to the highest CNs

PS. Let's wait Rafik to confirm if he published the real 'family member' or the real visa issued as Reavsky did on the second cologne......
Click to expand...


Malcom, are you saying that 5% of cases have things like a family member not getting a visa when the main selectee is approved? 5 cases in 100? That sounds way too many to me...
 
Britsimon said:
Malcom, are you saying that 5% of cases have things like a family member not getting a visa when the main selectee is approved? 5 cases in 100? That sounds way too many to me...
Click to expand...
Yes for me too but check Reavsky file of september 2013 and you will find that difference between ' family member' cologne and 'visa issued' cologne... in the calculation that I did: I've calculated that difference for each region because she is not the same, then I've applied that ration on the total visas of CEAC june file par region also...then I got the diff per region as I mentioned.... it seams correct .... let's wait for Rafik confirmation.... the question is how Reavsky got both cologne and if Rafik can do the same next month
 
MalcomX said:
Yes for me too but check Reavsky file of september 2013 and you will find that difference between ' family member' cologne and 'visa issued' cologne... in the calculation that I did: I've calculated that difference for each region because she is not the same, then I've applied that ration on the total visas of CEAC june file par region also...then I got the diff per region as I mentioned.... it seams correct .... let's wait for Rafik confirmation.... the question is how Reavsky got both cologne and if Rafik can do the same next month
Click to expand...

Just to remind you, that the Raevsky data is known to be missing vsas. 51k were issued but his data only had45k.

Also we know for a fact that the Ceac data is not updated correctly, so even if Rafik can do the same, that just brings us back to the same state as we are in with the method Dalius is using.
 
MalcomX said:
Yes for me too but check Reavsky file of september 2013 and you will find that difference between ' family member' cologne and 'visa issued' cologne... in the calculation that I did: I've calculated that difference for each region because she is not the same, then I've applied that ration on the total visas of CEAC june file par region also...then I got the diff per region as I mentioned.... it seams correct .... let's wait for Rafik confirmation.... the question is how Reavsky got both cologne and if Rafik can do the same next month
Click to expand...

MalcomX , Tell me that were your predictions inline with last VBs ???
 
MalcomX said:
Yes for me too but check Reavsky file of september 2013 and you will find that difference between ' family member' cologne and 'visa issued' cologne... in the calculation that I did: I've calculated that difference for each region because she is not the same, then I've applied that ration on the total visas of CEAC june file par region also...then I got the diff per region as I mentioned.... it seams correct .... let's wait for Rafik confirmation.... the question is how Reavsky got both cologne and if Rafik can do the same next month
Click to expand...
Britsimon said:
Just to remind you, that the Raevsky data is known to be missing vsas. 51k were issued but his data only had45k.

Also we know for a fact that the Ceac data is not updated correctly, so even if Rafik can do the same, that just brings us back to the same state as we are in with the method Dalius is using.
Click to expand...

OK,
I will try to add new column for issued Visa, when the case is refused, I will correct CEAC data (If I got the motivation to do it).
 
rafikbo76 said:
OK,
I will try to add new column for issued Visa, when the case is refused, I will correct CEAC data (If I got the motivation to do it).
Click to expand...

The faulty part of your data is definitly insignifiant!
No need for etra collumns or extra work dude;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top