• 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

Mushy_hot said:
is it true that each year you register for DV chances becomes minimal??? if its true, whats the reason????
Click to expand...

Whoever says that does not understand statistics. Whether or not you entered previously has no bearing on your chances the next time you enter.
 
SusieQQQ said:
Whoever says that does not understand statistics. Whether or not you entered previously has no bearing on your chances the next time you enter.
Click to expand...
Hello Susie,

You are perfectly right. Each draw being independent, your chances are the same each year. On the other hand, the more you play, the higher the odds are to win :)

This follows a binomial distribution. For the ones who like stats, here is the link to a quite interesting :confused: wikipedia page: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution. The table in the link below is easier to understand: http://statistics.about.com/od/Formulas/a/Binomial-Table-For-N-2-To-6.htm.

I was selected after my sixth year of playing, and I determined that I had after these 6 years around 5.7% of chance of winning (considering my region has a 1% success rate for each yearly draw). Not too bad, considering my wife was also playing, which pretty much doubled our chances of winning.

In conclusion, the more you play, the higher the chances you have to win eventually. But the weird thing is you have the same (low) odds to win on each individual draw, as each draw is completely independent from another.
 
Mushy_hot said:
is it true that each year you register for DV chances becomes minimal??? if its true, whats the reason????
Click to expand...

Not true at all. Where did you hear this rubbish?

You register, they assess you for minimum requirements. If you pass those minimum requirements, your name goes into the draw. If your name gets randomly drawn out, you get assigned the next available CN.

Simple.

Caveat: Although, I have no idea how to account for the numerous instances where people with a high CN one year are lucky enough to get drawn out again for the following year with a much lower CN.
 
MattWatt said:
Not true at all. Where did you hear this rubbish?

You register, they assess you for minimum requirements. If you pass those minimum requirements, your name goes into the draw. If your name gets randomly drawn out, you get assigned the next available CN.

Simple.

Caveat: Although, I have no idea how to account for the numerous instances where people with a high CN one year are lucky enough to get drawn out again for the following year with a much lower CN.
Click to expand...

They don't assess you for minimum requirements, all they check for is no obvious disqualifying problems with the entry - eg duplicate entries; and then you get notified. As we've seen here, enough people who didn't bother to read the eligibility requirements eg high school get selected.

I also know of some people drawn two years in a row. I doubt it is "numerous".
 
SusieQQQ said:
They don't assess you for minimum requirements, all they check for is no obvious disqualifying problems with the entry - eg duplicate entries; and then you get notified. As we've seen here, enough people who didn't bother to read the eligibility requirements eg high school get selected.

I also know of some people drawn two years in a row. I doubt it is "numerous".
Click to expand...

How flawed is that system then? I just assumed that they weeded out those that didn't qualify first. Then again, CEAC data does show relatively few rejections, so I guess there's not that many.

I've seen more than a couple of re-selectees, but yes perhaps "numerous" is a stretch.
 
MattWatt said:
Caveat: Although, I have no idea how to account for the numerous instances where people with a high CN one year are lucky enough to get drawn out again for the following year with a much lower CN.
Click to expand...

Most of the two time winners seem to be OC so I'm guessing it's just the higher odds.
 
MattWatt said:
How flawed is that system then? I just assumed that they weeded out those that didn't qualify first. Then again, CEAC data does show relatively few rejections, so I guess there's not that many.

I've seen more than a couple of re-selectees, but yes perhaps "numerous" is a stretch.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing a lot of those who don't follow through are the ones who belatedly realise they don't qualify. Yes there are few rejections, but there are a lot who don't proceed to interview in the first place.

And the system may not be as flawed as you think. It does not know, for example, what level work experience might be at and whether or not that overcomes lack of high school. Or whether someone's high school diploma is acceptable or not. The entry form is nowhere near detailed enough to assess these factors and besides - these types of eligibility factors can only be decided by a consular official, not a computer and not anyone at KCC. The only "flaw" is expecting people to read the instructions before they submit.
 
SusieQQQ said:
I'm guessing a lot of those who don't follow through are the ones who belatedly realise they don't qualify. Yes there are few rejections, but there are a lot who don't proceed to interview in the first place.

And the system may not be as flawed as you think. It does not know, for example, what level work experience might be at and whether or not that overcomes lack of high school. Or whether someone's high school diploma is acceptable or not. The entry form is nowhere near detailed enough to assess these factors and besides - these types of eligibility factors can only be decided by a consular official, not a computer and not anyone at KCC. The only "flaw" is expecting people to read the instructions before they submit.
Click to expand...

I guess, as a Business Analyst, I see this and think "this could be done so much better".
 
SusieQQQ said:
There's a good chance that we will be co-owning a boat in the bay with a friend who lives near you... Let us know if you want in. The Ferrari I'm afraid you're on your own for ;)
Click to expand...

That's a good idea. I've owned boats before and I remember boat stands for Break Out Another Thousand. So yeah a share would be a smarter idea. Interested.
 
Se
MattWatt said:
I guess, as a Business Analyst, I see this and think "this could be done so much better".
Click to expand...

Seconded. The process is awful. Selectees with low CNs can dilly-dally for months, tying up visas, only to pull out by the end and see the visa quota unfilled!

All it would take is a policy of

1. Get your forms in before start of FY or you're out of the running

2. When your number's up, your interview date is set - turn up or your visa will go to someone else (unless you can provide a very good reason for not showing)

Many of the silly problems we face would be resolved.
 
connectedspace said:
Se


Seconded. The process is awful. Selectees with low CNs can dilly-dally for months, tying up visas, only to pull out by the end and see the visa quota unfilled!

All it would take is a policy of

1. Get your forms in before start of FY or you're out of the running

2. When your number's up, your interview date is set - turn up or your visa will go to someone else (unless you can provide a very good reason for not showing)

Many of the silly problems we face would be resolved.
Click to expand...
You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. If you check ceac for eu you can see that readies don't hold up progress.
 
SusieQQQ said:
We know there are regional quotas and the factors used - it's been linked to a few times here, it is explained in part of the 9FAM notes. I'll see if I can find it again and if so will post the link. I don't remember the quota being based on entries for DV though (other than having to be capped for high entry countries), just on immigration stats to the US.

Edit to add: p2 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87838.pdf
It is population of the regions, not entries to the DV program, that is the other factor apart from immigration stats that determines the quota. Note unused quotas are distributed among remaining regions.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed this is what FAM notes are talking about, but I do not think it is that simple, because of two things:
1. I've tried to calculate the population of all countries eligible in DV2014 (based on wikipedia population of each country) and this is how it looks like (population in millions):
- AFRICA 1.028124
- ASIA 0,904414
- EUROPE 0,834971
- NE 0,000319
- OC 0,034892
- SOUTH AMERICA 0,160654
which means:
- AFRICA - 34,69%
- ASIA 30,52%
- EUROPE 28,18%
- NE 0,01%
- OC 1,17%
- SOUTH AMERICA 5,42%

Please take a look at ASIA. 30,52%? More than Europe?
From this calculation I can say that this is not the way they estimate the regional quota. I think there are more factors that influence this quota.

BTW: If we look at this chart: http://forums.immigration.com/attachments/2014-06-27_1441-png.56/ we can see why ASIA doesn't get 30,52% visas. It is because Asia gets a lot of immigrant visas from Family and Employment and this way the DV visas must be "cut down". Otherwise there would be too much Asians in USA. DV lottery is all about diversity. The target is to have as much diverse immigrants as possible (talkin about all immigrants, not only DV immigrants). If we have a lot of people immigrating on Family basis from one region, then we have to cut down DV visas for those people. So this is a second proof why we can not just give DV visas in proportion to populaion of each region.


2. Please take a look at "Sloner's video":
(BTW: Simon: can you link it to: "useful links - gathered in one place), go to 16:40. This gentelman clearly says that regional quota depends on two main factors:
- number of total entries in DV from that region
- number of all immigration visas issued in the last 5 years for that region
I think that the number of total entries can be correlated with the number of population, so it is not exactly "incompatible" with FAM notes.
That is why I would like to know the number of entrants from each country (or each region) to do more stats. Doeas anybody have this data?
 
szym said:
Yes indeed this is what FAM notes are talking about, but I do not think it is that simple, because of two things:
1. I've tried to calculate the population of all countries eligible in DV2014 (based on wikipedia population of each country) and this is how it looks like (population in millions):
- AFRICA 1.028124
- ASIA 0,904414
- EUROPE 0,834971
- NE 0,000319
- OC 0,034892
- SOUTH AMERICA 0,160654
which means:
- AFRICA - 34,69%
- ASIA 30,52%
- EUROPE 28,18%
- NE 0,01%
- OC 1,17%
- SOUTH AMERICA 5,42%

Please take a look at ASIA. 30,52%? More than Europe?
From this calculation I can say that this is not the way they estimate the regional quota. I think there are more factors that influence this quota.

BTW: If we look at this chart: http://forums.immigration.com/attachments/2014-06-27_1441-png.56/ we can see why ASIA doesn't get 30,52% visas. It is because Asia gets a lot of immigrant visas from Family and Employment and this way the DV visas must be "cut down". Otherwise there would be too much Asians in USA. DV lottery is all about diversity. The target is to have as much diverse immigrants as possible (talkin about all immigrants, not only DV immigrants). If we have a lot of people immigrating on Family basis from one region, then we have to cut down DV visas for those people. So this is a second proof why we can not just give DV visas in proportion to populaion of each region.


2. Please take a look at "Sloner's video":
(BTW: Simon: can you link it to: "useful links - gathered in one place), go to 16:40. This gentelman clearly says that regional quota depends on two main factors:
- number of total entries in DV from that region
- number of all immigration visas issued in the last 5 years for that region
I think that the number of total entries can be correlated with the number of population, so it is not exactly "incompatible" with FAM notes.
That is why I would like to know the number of entrants from each country (or each region) to do more stats. Doeas anybody have this data?
Click to expand...

But you were only looking at half of the calculation, which is the population. The other factor is immigration into the US over the previous five years. It's not just "sloner's video", it's in the FAM notes too.... AND I mentioned it explicitly in my previous post.

I also think you're incorrect about correlating population with entries. I would need to go get some numbers but I would guess you get more entries from an African country than a Western European country with the same population...

And I already gave you a link with the number of entrants per country. So even if it is not as up to date as you like, go ahead and use it for previous years to see how well it stacks up with your theory....

But the bottom line is you don't know enough of the variables, even after the fact, to work it out. So I think (1) you're largely wasting your time and (2) even if by some miracle you do manage to figure it out, then....so what? It won't change anything.
 
SusieQQQ said:
And I already gave you a link with the number of entrants per country.
Click to expand...

Ups. Did I missed it? Can you repeat that link?
I only saw a link with total number of entrants, and number of selectees per country.

SusieQQQ said:
But the bottom line is you don't know enough of the variables, even after the fact, to work it out. So I think (1) you're largely wasting your time and (2) even if by some miracle you do manage to figure it out, then....so what? It won't change anything.
Click to expand...

Sad, but true...
I have a high CN in DV2015 (EU 44xxx). I would like to know what to do with my life in the next 12 months. Prepare to sell the house?, send kids for more english classes?, do not sign long time agreements? etc. I would like to know better what are my chances for the interview. That is why I would like to do more stats...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top