• 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.

sloner axiom :)

Sloner said:
No. We must take a number of about 17,000. This number is close to reality.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll play. 17000 for which number - the number of people interviewed or the number of visas issued??? Either way is MUCH WORSE than what the real numbers show.

It is either like this (17000 people could have had interviews but 11294 visas were issued)

140660 / 17000 = 8.27
8.27 * 11294 = 93401

OR

like this (24200 people will produce 17000 visas issued)

140660 / 24200 = 5.8
5.8 * 17000 = 98600


And then of course there is the problem that you plucked the 17000 from thin air - whereas the other numbers are from the CEAC data.
 
24200 out of 140660 generated 11894 visa within 4 months !
So sloner ?!!! Not including aos not including come backs !
And times is running out !
 
britsimon said:
OK, I'll play. 17000 for which number - the number of people interviewed or the number of visas issued??? Either way is MUCH WORSE than what the real numbers show.

It is either like this (17000 people could have had interviews but 11294 visas were issued)

140660 / 17000 = 8.27
8.27 * 11294 = 93401

OR

like this (24200 people will produce 17000 visas issued)

140660 / 24200 = 5.8
5.8 * 17000 = 98600


And then of course there is the problem that you plucked the 17000 from thin air - whereas the other numbers are from the CEAC data.
Click to expand...

Thank you ! He's it making worse !
If 17k produced 11k visas than its a total stuff up !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
britsimon said:
24200 is the number of selectees (including family) shown on CEAC up to the January cutoffs. So - looking at Rafikbos data, the January cutoff for AF was 19400 - and that is 11156 people. His data shows the visas issued numbers that could only have been issued to people up to the end of January. (because he grabbed the data on the 2nd February). So - his numbers show a total of 11294 visas for the cases up to the end January and 24200 is the number of selectees (up to the end of January).

So - Vladeks method demonstrates that the first 4 months success rate per selectee means that we need over 70k visas to satisfy the demand. Or to put it another way, at current success rates (for first 4 month and with NO AP cases going to issued and NO AOS) we would get to 55k visas with 117,854 selectees. Or we could get to 50k with 106964 (again with NO AOS and NO AP cases turning to issued)

So, contrary to your theory that we will see higher failure rates this year, we are actually seeing lower failure rates than 2013. So Sloner - what do you think?
Click to expand...

Err.... I don't think we can use the first 3 or 4 months to predict the entire year. Bear in mind, all heavy weights are still in the picture for early months. All those countries with 6k selectees will not have interviews for 2.5k of their selectees if return rate is 100%. But we just count 70%, that could have around 20k selectees out from the picture. Of course this could factor it into AP cases etc...

I just felt this calculation does not reflect the DV visa issued : selectees ratio because the ratio is not linear due to special countries.
 
I just felt this calculation does not reflect the DV visa issued : selectees ratio because the ratio is not linear due to special countries.
Click to expand...
Yes. You are right.
Need to calculate the last year to February and compare.
 
Sloner said:
Yes. You are right.
Need to calculate the last year to February and compare.
Click to expand...

Sloner you are the one who came with ratios and you always said bring calculations!
Now you use 2012 ratio, i use 2014 one, and you dont agree! why?
Kayend: 4 months of the same dv wont reflect 100% the whole year i agree.
You readjust it to 10% +- . Im as sad you if things satys with the same rate Raevsky
Will be right at the end :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kayend said:
Err.... I don't think we can use the first 3 or 4 months to predict the entire year. Bear in mind, all heavy weights are still in the picture for early months. All those countries with 6k selectees will not have interviews for 2.5k of their selectees if return rate is 100%. But we just count 70%, that could have around 20k selectees out from the picture. Of course this could factor it into AP cases etc...

I just felt this calculation does not reflect the DV visa issued : selectees ratio because the ratio is not linear due to special countries.
Click to expand...

Yes I hear you - however I think we can ignore the countries with 6k selectees for two reasons. Firstly, return/success rates in those countries mean (in general) that they will not hit the 7% limit even with all selectees from that country. So - we wll only lose some selectees from a few countries (Nepal for sure, Iran probably and perhaps no others). I'll check individual countries but there may only be one or two other countries that get close to the 7%.

Then if we look at Nepal we can say that their return and success rate is very much higher than the normal - so yes that will mean that compared to a "normal" country the Nepal 6k will yield more visas.
 
britsimon said:
Yes I hear you - however I think we can ignore the countries with 6k selectees for two reasons. Firstly, return/success rates in those countries mean (in general) that they will not hit the 7% limit even with all selectees from that country. So - we wll only lose some selectees from a few countries (Nepal for sure, Iran probably and perhaps no others). I'll check individual countries but there may only be one or two other countries that get close to the 7%.

Then if we look at Nepal we can say that their return and success rate is very much higher than the normal - so yes that will mean that compared to a "normal" country the Nepal 6k will yield more visas.
Click to expand...

It is definitely clear that we have 18-20% more selectees than DV13 (after taking in 4k back from NACARA program). I have no doubt that getting current for all is really a stress goal and it is very slim in chances. We need miracle happen to get there but what I am saying is the calculation cannot use for the entire year. As you pointed out we need to make assumption in order to get the calculation to where we think is going to be. Anyway, i do hope that miracle really happen because all the folks here deserve a chance for interview.
 
kayend said:
It is definitely clear that we have 18-20% more selectees than DV13 (after taking in 4k back from NACARA program). I have no doubt that getting current for all is really a stress goal and it is very slim in chances. We need miracle happen to get there but what I am saying is the calculation cannot use for the entire year. As you pointed out we need to make assumption in order to get the calculation to where we think is going to be. Anyway, i do hope that miracle really happen because all the folks here deserve a chance for interview.
Click to expand...


Yes agreed!
 
Hi friends,

A good comparaison can be made next may,
and the only things to compare, I think, is ratios about issued/refused/ready and AP
 
kayend said:
It is definitely clear that we have 18-20% more selectees than DV13 (after taking in 4k back from NACARA program). I have no doubt that getting current for all is really a stress goal and it is very slim in chances. We need miracle happen to get there but what I am saying is the calculation cannot use for the entire year. As you pointed out we need to make assumption in order to get the calculation to where we think is going to be. Anyway, i do hope that miracle really happen because all the folks here deserve a chance for interview.
Click to expand...

Sure! Everyone here deserves an interview and that's my biggest wish really.
if sloner theory happens I will be the happiest man ever believe me! But on other hand looking at the process progress how will this happen, numbers have spoken, we all know that the first stats are not linear, and the process will accelerate of course soon or later, but I'm affraid the result will be awful.......
 
the best comparison that we can perform is on the 27th of May, since we already have the CEAC data of last year so we will be able to understand how CNs will progress during the last 4 months ...., my personal conviction is that we will not see current everywhere as last year ...
 
the best comparison that we can perform is on the next 27th of May, since we already have the CEAC data of last year so we will be able to understand how CNs will progress during the last 4 months ...., my personal conviction is that we will not see current everywhere as last year ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top