We could safely assume the quota underfilling 34K instead of 50K was caused exactly by this. Overall 33% did not know. In Africa much more than that, in Europe much less than that. You have the data - the number of visas issued per region
Sloner axiom or Britsimon theory.... which due you think will be right at last.....
- Thread starter Rayme
- Start date
Excluding Iran and Nepal.
for me, Raevsky's explanation looks extremely complicated ,
it is like once upon in your life you got into situation when wooden stairway which you found nearby saved your life ... and since then you always wear this heavy stuff with you , thinking that if you get again in that danger - it will save your life
I mean selection of more 40% is same heavy and uncomfortable solution as if you wear that wooden stairway daily
dvbibasd
Member
kcc would have known about this
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Hmmmm. Not sure I buy it - but I appreciate the explanation!
By the way - if this explanation is correct - then they would go on doing this in future years - correct?
I am expecting to see a return to 105k selectees for DV2015 - so presumably you would expect the 125/140 numbers again....
Who is talking about whole life? 2014 was the first year where DV program was drawn after that court. The danger seemed imminent. Several years would pass and they will forget about this danger until the next lawsuit strikes.
I am not sure they will abandon this practice by 2015. But sooner or later they will.
actually i was asking about how many winners knew about their win in fisrt draw 2012.
but anyway i think, they decide number of future selected , according to their instructions , but not based on one time event.
I mean , if you are right , for DV2015 they will again choose more 40K winners as insurance in case of judicial problems.
What for me , they have much easy way to solve this issues and it called "additional draw" ?
"2012 situation" was anomalous , yes? - so why they can not make in anomalous year anomaly more additional draws?
less form received? - select 30K more people , then 20K again if need
KCC always has answer to winners who will remain out of the process - "win does not guarantee that you will get a visa because number of selecties is more then visa available"
So KCC have a choice
1)either to disappoint 30-40K people every year , trying to be save in case of new "2012 crash"
2) if "crash 2012" happen(who knows will it happen it all?) - to make more additional draws and disappoint even less people in only that annomaly year .
which way is preferable ? how do you think?
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Yep I just can't see the "just in case there is a problem" explanation. However, they don't care how many they disappoint - they explain from the beginning that selection does not guarantee a GC. However, now that they no longer mail letters, haveing 30k extra selectees doesn't increase costs (postage and cost of letter production) at all and it ensure they meet the targets....
i'm sure they care !
otherwise any year they could select 200k people , and there would never be a year with 35-46K visa issuance ,
yes they warn , that selection doesn't guarantee .... but they try to have less disappointed people , this is for sure .
And regarding to additional selection , why they should use postage ? what cost?
in 1st may they inform everybody to keep their confirm. number - and many people for example kept waiting for october draw this year.
so why they cannot IN CASE OF ANOMALOUS YEAR(and judicial problems) , make several draws , maximum 2 times , to have enough sent forms and fill the quota?
what is easyer ?
in case IF ANOMALOUS YEAR (and judicial problems)happen ,to make 2nd draw in october , then if need make one more in january (still enough time to send docs)
or - every year choose 40% more then need selecties , thinking that one day ,in case IF ANOMALOUS YEAR (and judicial problems)happen , it could help them to fill global quota
MalcomX
Active Member
I agree with you, I'll give an other argument, as the American government cares a lot about money and budget, and we know that each KCC agent needs several minute to treat each diviste forms (10 minutes minimum), so if we assume that we have 30k more and 67% of them will send form as 2013 rate, so we will have 20k additional forms, 20000 * 10 minute= 200000 minutes = 3334 hours --> they need to recruit 6 additional agents and those agents need to work during 3 month , 40 hours per week to be able to finalize the extra work, sincerely I don't think that they will do it just to prevent 2012 bug ... this is nonsensical and even foolishness 
Britsimon
Super Moderator
I agree with you, I'll give an other argument, as the American government cares a lot about money and budget, and we know that each KCC agent needs several minute to treat each diviste forms (10 minutes minimum), so if we assume that we have 30k more and 67% of them will send form as 2013 rate, so we will have 20k additional forms, 20000 * 10 minute= 200000 minutes = 3334 hours --> they need to recruit 6 additional agents and those agents need to work during 3 month , 40 hours per week to be able to finalize the extra work, sincerely I don't think that they will do it just to prevent 2012 bug ... this is nonsensical and even foolishness
Good points both of you.
To be clear - I don't think they do it just in case as Raevsky is suggesting. My belief (strong belief) is that a formula, based on 2012, made them select the 140k. However, if they announce 125k again in the 1st May 1NL that would disprove my theory - so we only have to wait until then to know if I am wrong. That would also be a important day for the Slonet theory - because if they announce a normal amount of selectees on May 1 - then Sloners theory (all of it, not just the selectee reasoning) is dead also. Raevsky has hedged his bets - so his can't be proven one way or another by the May 1 announcement.
yes , i also agree with your points , and it looks very possible , that they just blindly used stats. of 2012 to predict numb.of winners for dv14.
the only thing which left me in doubts , that their increase is disproportional with regions.
for global quota they did increase with closed eyes and took stats of 2012 , but for regions , they didnt took the fact that according to 2012 for each african visa they need 3,7 selectie..
my friend ...
if they care much of their money and country's budget , - first thing they need to do is to eliminate DV-program.. and choose more carefully whom they take in their country.
sorry for thruth
Last edited by a moderator:
Britsimon
Super Moderator
I'm pretty sure that there are two unconnected calculations. One is how many selectees there should be globally - and that came up with 140k. That formula is not controlled by law - so it is probably regulated by a procedure/rule establsihed some time ago.
The second calculation is the split of the global pool between the regions. That is a legal mandated formula so they have little control of that. I think the formula is applied to the selectee pool (and there is strong evidence of that happening) but some think it is applied to the visas issued per region (for which we have no recent evidence that I know of that shows the regional quota kicking in.
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Very good chances - you are in a range that I consider completely safe.
SusieQQQ
Well-Known Member
I can't find the original post about this - someone was mentioning mailing selectees. It's not just cost reasons they stopped doing this - there were some big problems with this system when it was running. One was that some selectees never got their letters (those of us in countries with dodgy postal systems will understand this). Another main one was that in certain countries these letters would often be intercepted and either stolen for someone else to try use, or used to blackmail the selectee to pay over money before they could get their letter.
Sloner
Active Member
These problems with losses envelopes began 15 years ago. Only in 2012 have eliminated this problem. Partially... With the development of technology in Africa do not sleep and intermediaries. They fill out an application for the village.
Raevskii thinks correctly. But the conclusions he makes crazy.