Visa bulletin current in September 2013

[raevsky]

So raevsky, are you saying that anyone with a case number above 1580 in the SA region won't get called for an interview? I mean it doesn't make sense to me, thought that was usually always one of the regions to go current first is previous years. Basically are you saying the only region to go current for dv2014 would be Africa?? How many times in recent memory has this happened in the past?

Not the only one. Africa is some kind of on the border. Could be current, could be not.
The fate of NA is still unclear to me.
It also does not makes sense to talk about RECENT history because in recent years all regions had hidden winners, unlike DV-14.
BTW, that still happened rather recently, for one single country - Uzbekistan in DV-11. In August Uzbekistan became Unavailable, and in September it continued to be Unavailable. And starting DV-12 they changed the procedure for Uzbekistan - they cut the numbers for it so that there would be almost no winners from Uzbekistan above certain number (about 20000). The same is practice for some other high participating countries (Ghana, Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Ukraine). That way they also made Uzbekistan always current by the end of the year.

 

[monashed]

raevsky is just playing with you all, he doesn't know anything at least no more than you do, if he doesn't work for the government,
which i doubt that.
look at DV's from all years , each year numbers are different -some years there were asia numbers of 70-80K and some years only 10K
it's changed all the time , so he cannot know which numbers will be at last.

 

[raevsky]

The difference between years in Asian numeration is caused by presence or absence of Bangladesh, country with enormous number of fake applications that are disqualified. Disqualified at KCC entries produce holes. People just enter entire white pages into the system. All those entries turn into holes, and we have 50K-70K numbers when Bangladesh is present.
And I have perfect numerical estimates of the process with Bangladesh too. It shows that the situation with other countries does not change or almost does not change from year to year.
Of course, I am not playing with anybody, this is a sound mathematical model.

he doesn't know anything at least no more than you do

Well, that is a matter of attitude. I totally disagree. I can analyze facts, and I can do that well. I do not have inside information, all the info I have is public, anybody could have the same input. But I follow DV process for many years, know a lot of facts and have a scientific mind that allows me to analyze them well.

 

[SusieQQQ]

Raevsky, you didn't answer my previous question. I can only think that your entire hypothesis about "hidden" numbers stems from the fact that you didn't realize the number of winners that is announced includes family members, which is what leads to the discrepancy between winner numbers and case numbers. Nothing "hidden". So all your conclusions are...rubbish.

 

[Kayend]

Not the only one. Africa is some kind of on the border. Could be current, could be not.
The fate of NA is still unclear to me.
It also does not makes sense to talk about RECENT history because in recent years all regions had hidden winners, unlike DV-14.
BTW, that still happened rather recently, for one single country - Uzbekistan in DV-11. In August Uzbekistan became Unavailable, and in September it continued to be Unavailable. And starting DV-12 they changed the procedure for Uzbekistan - they cut the numbers for it so that there would be almost no winners from Uzbekistan above certain number (about 20000). The same is practice for some other high participating countries (Ghana, Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Ukraine). That way they also made Uzbekistan always current by the end of the year.

How do you know for sure there is hidden case numbers? If there really have hidden case number, based on what basis the percentage of hidden number is chosen? It's still doesn't make sense to me to have hidden number of 40% of the selectee in the case of Asia in dv-13 and yet the statistic of 60% success rate. 16k winners x 60% = 9600 notified winners with 9000 visa available. 9600 x 60% success rate = 5760. Even without holes, it has 9000 available visa for 5760 potential successful applicants?

 

[raevsky]

Raevsky, you didn't answer my previous question. I can only think that your entire hypothesis about "hidden" numbers stems from the fact that you didn't realize the number of winners that is announced includes family members, which is what leads to the discrepancy between winner numbers and case numbers. Nothing "hidden".

OK. Let's see. That is a very valid question that nobody asked before. I think that is really weird, I was waiting for this question. BTW, I did not see you asking it.

DV-2001
Eritrea 245 winners (as you suggest, including family members), 311 visas issued

DV-2003
Albania 1898 winners (as you suggest, including family members), 2035 visas

DV-2007
Greece 41 winners (as you suggest, including family members), 55 visas

DV-2008
Greece 77 winners (as you suggest, including family members), 84 visas

DV-2009
Greece 63 winners (as you suggest, including family members), 76 visas

How could number of visas issued be so much more than the number of winners, including family members?! Especially provided not more than 50% of winners send documents to KCC from most of the countries.

So all your conclusions are...rubbish

So, are there any doubts in the fact that is without family members? Any explanation? Who are getting all those visas? Winners? Their family members? Or someone else?

 

[Kayend]

Raevsky, you didn't answer my previous question. I can only think that your entire hypothesis about "hidden" numbers stems from the fact that you didn't realize the number of winners that is announced includes family members, which is what leads to the discrepancy between winner numbers and case numbers. Nothing "hidden". So all your conclusions are...rubbish.

Exactly, selectee includes family members and case # only issued to principal applicants, that is why we have case # lesser than selectee even includes holes in it.

 

[SusieQQQ]

Those are tiny countries you use as examples, I agree it sounds odd. But with small numbers like that...something odd could have happened(no I don't know what), your argument would need to show this is true across regions including big ones too.

However: I had this debate with someone a while ago, becashe I also thought that the number of winners was primary only. They gave me a link to an official US govt page that explicitly said that the number of winners drawn includes all derivatives.

When I have some time I will both double check your numbers and see if I can find the link, I need to remember what forum/thread it would have been on.

Edit: I seem only to be able to find winner numbers from DV2011 onwards, can you give me a link so I can compare vs visa issuance for the countries you mention as they are all earlier than that?
I have seen before a table that has all the details (number of winners, broken down by principal and dependents and I think it may have had final visa take up in there too) but I can't find the link right now. Any help for this one appreciated too.

Edit again: one possibility for the discrepancy in Raevsky's winners vs visa numbers, assuming they are right, and especially given the small numbers Raevsky quoted, is marriages and children born after the selection date.

 

[raevsky]

How do you know for sure there is hidden case numbers?

How else would you explain that 16K winners from Asia coexist with numbers on CEAC going only up to 10700? Provide a sound explanation.

If there really have hidden case number, based on what basis the percentage of hidden number is chosen?

We could calculate the total max number for hidden and open winners based on differences of probabilities of wins for different Asian countries when they all should be the same according to the published government regulations. Or is your question about how the government chooses the percentage? I think it somehow estimates how many hidden numbers is needed in case of neccesity if they need to provide additional batches of open winners.

It's still doesn't make sense to me to have hidden number of 40% of the selectee in the case of Asia in dv-13 and yet the statistic of 60% success rate. 16k winners x 60% = 9600 notified winners with 9000 visa available. 9600 x 60% success rate = 5760. Even without holes, it has 9000 available visa for 5760 potential successful applicants?

I rellay do not understand you calculations. I can tell you mine. 16K winners. Max open number 10700. 10700/1.15 ~ 9K notified winners. Also, 16K - 9K = 7K hidden winners. I did not get your logic, please explain.

 

[SusieQQQ]

How else would you explain that 16K winners from Asia coexist with numbers on CEAC going only up to 10700? Provide a sound explanation.

.

The sound explanation has been given... You just don't want to hear it...

 

[raevsky]

Those are tiny countries you use as examples, I agree it sounds odd. But with small numbers like that...something odd could have happened(no I don't know what), your argument would need to show this is true across regions including big ones too.

However: I had this debate with someone a while ago, becashe I also thought that the number of winners was primary only. They gave me a link to an official US govt page that explicitly said that the number of winners drawn includes all derivatives.

When I have some time I will both double check your numbers and see if I can find the link, I need to remember what forum/thread it would have been on.

Edit: I seem only to be able to find winner numbers from DV2011 onwards, can you give me a link so I can compare vs visa issuance for the countries you mention as they are all earlier than that?
I have seen before a table that has all the details (number of winners, broken down by principal and dependents and I think it may have had final visa take up in there too) but I can't find the link right now. Any help for this one appreciated too.

Edit again: one possibility for the discrepancy in Raevsky's winners vs visa numbers, assuming they are right, and especially given the small numbers Raevsky quoted, is marriages and children born after the selection date.

Is Albania with 2000 visas small enough?
What is not a tiny country then?
Even for other countries, which are smaller, usually about 30% to 50% of winners apply with forms, not more.

Regarding links - there is no single place, you will have to google DV lottery results. For Albania in DV-2003 - http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/11248.htm , use google, that is easy.
Eritreia is not a small country too. 245 winners is a lot. 311 visas is 27% more that 245. That means people are mostly single, everybody applies and 27% marry right before visa issuance. I do not buy that. The link is http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/News/2000,0718-DV2001.shtm

 

[raevsky]

Another proof that there are hidden winners is also simple enough.
We know there are second batches in some lotteries, like 2003, 2007, 2013. They come out AFTER official statistics with winners per country is released. If those second batches are already included into that statistics (what is the case, according to me), those batches do not change official statistics and no updates in the statistics is needed.
If, on the other side, they were not into the statistics, that means those wins are additional wins that invalidate original statistic. However, no updates to original statistics were issued in either years. That means original statistics is still official and already included those second batches. So, the second batches were made from someone who was not notified in the beginning. From hidden winners.

 

[Kayend]

How else would you explain that 16K winners from Asia coexist with numbers on CEAC going only up to 10700? Provide a sound explanation.

16K winners includes family members but case # only issued to principal applicants.

I rellay do not understand you calculations. I can tell you mine. 16K winners. Max open number 10700. 10700/1.15 ~ 9K notified winners. Also, 16K - 9K = 7K hidden winners. I did not get your logic, please explain.

Based on your calculation, 9k notify winners (mean principal applicants) and 60% success rate (mean only 5760 visa will be issued). And it has 9k visa available. It has excess of 3240 visa. Why hide the number when you have more visa that potential successful applicant? If you take in family members into the equation and take away the hidden # concept then it make complete sense.

 

[raevsky]

They gave me a link to an official US govt page that explicitly said that the number of winners drawn includes all derivatives

So what? Official documents have mistakes sometimes too.
For instance, pi bill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill had a purpuse to dictate the value of pi to be exactly 3 by legislative action. By chance it did not make it to law, but it could.

 

[raevsky]

16K winners includes family members but case # only issued to principal applicants.

This contradicts facts from my post #46. You have to explain those facts if you believe this is not a contradiction. Otherwise any reference to official document would be analogous to absurd pi bill mentioned above. Even if the law says pi = 3, it is still 3.1415926... , no doubt about it.

 

[raevsky]

Based on your calculation, 9k notify winners (mean principal applicants) and 60% success rate (mean only 5760 visa will be issued). And it has 9k visa available. It has excess of 3240 visa. Why hide the number when you have more visa that potential successful applicant? If you take in family members into the equation and take away the hidden # concept then it make complete sense.

Got it now. 9K primary winners produce about 9K visas (not 5760) because 9K visas include family members. So, 9K winners plus family members would be about 16K people alltogether.

 

[SusieQQQ]

Found the link - Department of State press briefing:

QUESTION: But he’s allowed to bring them in? So how do we get to the 50,000?
MR. WILCOCK: The 50,000 is all recipients of visas, be they the principal applicant or family members. There is only 50,000 total available worldwide.


iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/.../20100928165617su0.400932.html

- it's quite near the start of the Q&A section, and he goes on to talk about it a bit more.

Anyway logically your argument doesn't make a lot of sense because if the winners were principal only, the number of visas issued would be exhausted well before you'd get near the higher case numbers - by contrast, for over 10 years all numbers have been current by the end. Ie it wouldn't work that you'd get "hidden" visas, it would work the other way -> that numbers would be exhausted by being taken up by family members if they were not included in the original winners number.

Urgh link seems wonky, see if this works http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/...9/20100928165617su0.400932.html#axzz2YjtqYxWi

 

[raevsky]

This link is about the fact that visa quota 50,000 includes family members. It does not say anything about the published amount of winners.
But as I said, even if it did say that, that would contradict facts. If a regulation contradict facts it means the regulation is invalid.

for over 10 years all numbers have been current by the end. Ie it wouldn't work that you'd get "hidden" visas, it would work the other way -> that numbers would be exhausted by being taken up by family members if they were not included in the original winners number.

Lottery exists more than 20 years. Are you saying only for about 10 it was the case? I know there were a lot of lotteries where thing went differently

 

[SusieQQQ]

Is Albania with 2000 visas small enough?
What is not a tiny country then?
Even for other countries, which are smaller, usually about 30% to 50% of winners apply with forms, not more.

Regarding links - there is no single place, you will have to google DV lottery results. For Albania in DV-2003 - http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/11248.htm , use google, that is easy.
Eritreia is not a small country too. 245 winners is a lot. 311 visas is 27% more that 245. That means people are mostly single, everybody applies and 27% marry right before visa issuance. I do not buy that. The link is http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/News/2000,0718-DV2001.shtm

You don't buy it? Really? Do you have any idea how much someone can get paid for a green card marriage in places like Eritrea and Albania?

So what? Official documents have mistakes sometimes too.
For instance, pi bill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill had a purpuse to dictate the value of pi to be exactly 3 by legislative action. By chance it did not make it to law, but it could.

Ok so now we're heading to the at best head in the sand at worst conspiracy theory type response... Do you wear a little tinfoil hat while you do your calculations? No point arguing if you won't hear the truth...

 

[SusieQQQ]

This link is about the fact that visa quota 50,000 includes family members. It does not say anything about the published amount of winners.
But as I said, even if it did say that, that would contradict facts. If a regulation contradict facts it means the regulation is invalid.

You missed the logic, Mr Scientific Mind. It was explained. I can't bother repeating myself. Should be clear to most people that all this talk of "hidden winners" is nonsensical claptrap.