Visa bulletin current in September 2013

[monashed]

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.
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.

I'm a mathematician and software developer as my main occupation , i didn't found any logic in what you write here,
I'm also good with numbers and statistics, please provide evidence for you calculations or people would treated you as a troll that wanted to ruin people mood.
if you don't have any algorithm or fact you are based on , said it's a lucky guess and we'll see if you are right at July 2014 bulletin board.

b.t.w did you ever succeed to guess the numbers on previous lotteries , if so please provide links to your previous guesses

 

[raevsky]

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?

In Greece that happened 3 years in a row. If there was something illegal with it, they would crack on it the second year, third at most. They did not, everything was legal.
In DV-13 Albania has 1520 winners, at the same time CEAC lists only 398 winning entries and 874 together with family members for Tirana consulate in Albania. Only a small percent of Albanians apply with forms to KCC nowadays.

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.

You could ignore facts as much as you could, that is not a problem to me. However, facts are still facts and other people do not ignore them.

 

[raevsky]

I'm a mathematician and software developer as my main occupation , i didn't found any logic in what you write here,
I'm also good with numbers and statistics, please provide evidence for you calculations or people would treated you as a troll that wanted to ruin people mood.
if you don't have any algorithm or fact you are based on , said it's a lucky guess and we'll see if you are right at July 2014 bulletin board.

b.t.w did you ever succeed to guess the numbers on previous lotteries , if so please provide links to your previous guesses

Me too. One of the links is http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?548736-Why-are-they-selecting-more-entries-on-oct-1st
I referred to number 57000 that is the max hidden winner number for EU in DV-2012. I did not publish more exact calculations on this forum because it does not allow attachments like Excel spreadsheets.

BTW, mathematician and software developer, could you explain me the following thing?
How come the regulations state the chances to win within the region do not depend on the country and are the same within any single region, but the official statistics shows something like otherwise?

So, idea is all countries withing a single region (Asia) should have the same pobability of winning. And if they do not have the same probability, that means AFTER the draw some entries are disqualified. During the draw they had the same probability, as required by law. But disqualifications made the frequencies look different.

For instance, in DV13:
Cambodia: 986 winners, 103810 entries, frequency of wins is 0.95%.
Iran 6029 winners, 369118 etries, frequency of wins is 1.63%.
Why is the number different when it should be the same?

If you are a mathematician and software developer, as you state, that should give you some clue how to calculate the number of disqualified entries, based on the different frequencies. That is exactly what I did.
I have the algortihm, but if you are really mathematician as you state, this clue should be enough for you to reproduce my calculations.

So, I repeat - the probabilities are the same, because the regulations state so, frequencies should be close to probabilities because of the law of big numbers, and they initially are, before the disqualifications are done. But AFTER disqualifications the frequencies differ very much from probabilities because the number of disqualified entries differs on the country and on practices there. That is enough to reproduce my calculations. Of course, if you are a mathematician as you state. And if not, people here would treat you as a troll who states something different from what he or she is in reality.

 

[SusieQQQ]

Please give me a link to the part of CEAC site you are using.
CEAC is for consular processing only, so are you sure they list all dv or just the ones doing CP?

I need to find that spreadsheet I mentioned earlier, as it had the breakdowns of all and clearly showed that the number of winners included family. Or will you come up with some other bullsh*t when I do? Life was much more pleasant around here when you were banned.

While you're at it can you explain why someone I knew was AF93xxx drawn at in May and current in following Sept, this would imply no hidden numbers at least for Africa. Also explain how our family of 4 all with same case number fits in with your hidden number theory.

 

[SusieQQQ]

In Greece that happened 3 years in a row. If there was something illegal with it, they would crack on it the second year, third at most. They did not, everything was legal.

You're talking about something like EIGHT PEOPLE extra. Is it beyond you to imagine that a handful of new spouses or children could be legal?

 

[SusieQQQ]

Anyway there is something seriously wrong with someone who spends years running programs for no apparent reason other than to spread lies and bullsh*t on a forum. Complete troll, and I need to stop feeding it.

 

[raevsky]

Anyway there is something seriously wrong with someone who spends years running programs for no apparent reason other than to spread lies and bullsh*t on a forum. Complete troll, and I need to stop feeding it.

Nice troll.
To me it seems something wrong is with the person who with no apparent reason keeps ignoring obvious facts. Probably the purpose is to ignore the facts.

 

[raevsky]

You're talking about something like EIGHT PEOPLE extra. Is it beyond you to imagine that a handful of new spouses or children could be legal?

That is 10%-25% each year, 3 years in a row. Eight people is only for one of they years (10%). 3 years in a row does not sound like a random event for me.
Also, you are ignoring huge discrepancy in case of Albania and Eritrea.

 

[raevsky]

Please give me a link to the part of CEAC site you are using.
CEAC is for consular processing only, so are you sure they list all dv or just the ones doing CP?

I need to find that spreadsheet I mentioned earlier, as it had the breakdowns of all and clearly showed that the number of winners included family. Or will you come up with some other bullsh*t when I do? Life was much more pleasant around here when you were banned.

Looks offensive

I can't bother repeating myself.

Why do you still bother then?

The link I use is
https://ceac.state.gov/CEACStatTracker/Status.aspx

DV numbers are entered like 2013EU1 supressing leading zeros.
They do not list all DVs. They do not list AOS. They do not list certain consulates. And they do not list winners for whom forms were not sent to KCC. So, they include only winners who send documents to KCC for CP in certain consulates only.

While you're at it can you explain why someone I knew was AF93xxx drawn at in May and current in following Sept, this would imply no hidden numbers at least for Africa.

Almost everybody was drawn in May so far, except a few winners why were releases in October (transferred from hidden winners to open winners). This does not imply anything. Hidden winners in DV-13 exist and they do not know that they are winners. They are present on the statistical report only

Also explain how our family of 4 all with same case number fits in with your hidden number theory.

Very simple. You have 1 entry and 4 family members. I guess you number is open if you know you are a winner.
4 family member will take 4 numbers from quota for visas from you region, provided all 4 of you get visas. And 1 entry will be included into official DV-14 results when they are published (if they are going to publish those results) - into the item for your country

 

[Princedriss]

guys we are in september and everybody is current for DV2013

and for DV2014, dont worry , you all going to have your chances no mather what, you will have your chances

 

[raevsky]

Additional proofs for hidden numbers. If the October second batch (October 22nd in DV-13) were not the part of the original draw release in May, why would the second batch winners (released in October) have the date of approval stating on their website May 1st, not October 22nd? And if they are part of May draw, that means they were hidden until October 22nd.

 

[Britsimon]

Wow Raevsky has certainly caused the post count to go through the roof!

Regarding derivatives being within the 125k - I used to think that was true, but not now. Raevsky has provided this proof to me previously. Using CEAC (as he provided above) you can see entries that have consecutive numbers like EU1001, EU1002 etc where the EAC site shows the derivatives for each case number. So EU1001 might have 3 family members and that will be shown on the site as EU1001 01, EU1001 02, EU1001 03. Since the next case number is in some cases the very next number, that seems VERY conclusive to me.

Raevsky ALSO provided me with a contradictory statement made US DOS, but he pointed out that the statement was probably a typo and given the CEAC evidence I concur with that assessment.

I can also state that Raevsky has provided me with some of his analysis to assist my understanding of the matters. It is very clear to me that Raevsky knows the topic well and has done his research. He isn't a troll, in my opinion, but his communication style (and messages that none of us want to hear) seems to bring out a passionate reaction to him. Could he be wrong - yes of course - I hope so but none of us will know for many months yet. DV2014 IS different to at least some of the previous years - we all know that, exactly what the differences are and what impact the differences will have - we don't know yet.

 

[Immigr8]

Just a quick reminder to keep the posts civil please.

 

[raevsky]

Raevsky ALSO provided me with a contradictory statement made US DOS, but he pointed out that the statement was probably a typo and given the CEAC evidence I concur with that assessment.

That is regarding reference to that quote
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87840.pdf

9 FAM 42.33 PN3.1 Registration and Retention of Original Entries
(CT:VISA-1905; 10-01-2012)
The Kentucky Consular Center (KCC) registers approximately 105,000 applicants (both principals and dependents) each year. The KCC will notify posts of the number of applicants from their DV-processing area who were selected, broken down by country of residence. The Department will maintain a computer generated master list of registered applicants. The list is not publicly released.

Making it bold is mine, not theirs.

I believe this is totally wrong, even though this is an official document. This is principals only, excluding dependents.
9 FAM contains instructions for consuls (not for KCC), and I think this type of error in the document has no effect on the work of consuls, that is why it has not been corrected yet. That is a typo in the document that is going from version to version, without being corrected.
That is how it got there wrong. And the reason why I thing it is wrong is because it contradicts facts that I mentioned earlier. That is like pi law. If pi bill made it to a law (and it almost made a law), it would be clear it is wrong because it contradicts facts.

 

[SusieQQQ]

You just found a document that confirms what I said, but because it contradicts your assumptions (not facts) you dismiss it. But sure, let's believe you rather than DoS. That makes a lot of sense to everyone here. Not.

 

[raevsky]

Another thing is how DOS experts refer to what is called "additional selection".

http://fpc.state.gov/198409.htm

Rebecca Thurmond is a Visa Office expert at DOS.

MS. KING: Okay. Well, let me start with the first question. Again, the 50,000 applicants – the entrants, the winners – are chosen randomly through a very random process. Now, we have regions of the world – and I’m just looking at my expert – but we can have no more than 7 percent of the total from any region.

........................

MS. THURMOND: Sorry. My name is Rebecca Thurmond. I work in the Visa Office.

.............................................................

QUESTION: I have a follow-up question. But I have not seen that notation before. It seems like this is the first year this is being done, the additional selection in October, other than what was done in April or May. Or is it a standard practice; it just has been posted on the website and we weren’t aware of that before?

MS. THURMOND: So I can answer that. We have done this in the past, but what happened was that was when we were using a mail notification, so what happened was we simply sent out more letters to people. Now that we’ve moved to an electronic notification, people have to go on and check again to find out if they were added to the second group. So it is a practice we’ve done in the past, but this is the first time that people have to check back in to find out if they were selected as part of the second group.

Making it bold is mine, not theirs.
So, she refers to what is happening not as an "additional selection", rather than to a "second group". That is what I called second batch before. She is not hiding it, she is saying it has always been the case. They just used to send second batches and continue sending them nowadays.
Nobody called them "additional selections" before. If they are doing it now, that is a Liaison invention. That has always been just releasing a batch of hidden winners into open space.

 

[raevsky]

You just found a document that confirms what I said, but because it contradicts your assumptions (not facts) you dismiss it. But sure, let's believe you rather than DoS. That makes a lot of sense to everyone here. Not.

What would you do if pi bill made it to a law? Would you believe pi is equal to 3 because legislature said so? Or would you reject that pi equals to 3 because it contradicts facts? Or would you say that mathematicians dismiss the law because it contradicts their assumptions (not facts)? Or would you say that we need to believe mathematicians rather than state legislature, and that makes a lot of sense, not?

Is this another attempt to establish mathematical truth by legislative fiat?

I just need your personal opinion what would you do.

And this is just a typo in the official document.

 

[SusieQQQ]

What would you do if pi bill made it to a law? Would you believe pi is equal to 3 because legislature said so? Or would you reject that pi equals to 3 because it contradicts facts? Or would you say that mathematicians dismiss the law because it contradicts their assumptions (not facts)? Or would you say that we need to believe mathematicians rather than state legislature, and that makes a lot of sense, not?

Is this another attempt to establish mathematical truth by legislative fiat?

I just need your personal opinion what would you do.

And this is just a typo in the official document.

It's not, because I have seen the table breakdown where the total winners are divided into principals and derivatives and the numbers ADD UP to the total number of winners. What are you going to say when I find the link? That the whole table is a typo?

And of course this is not the same as some idiot trying to change a fact by making it a law. Completely false analogy. I don't doubt officials make mistakes, but I've seen the numbers backing up that statement. And you will also know that there are years when more than 50000 DVs have been granted, so your random examples of more DVs in a particular country proves my point rather than yours, ie more dependents come into being during the process. Someone on my local country forum married his pregnant girlfriend after his entry as a single person. They all got visas.

And your extract talks about a second selection, not hidden winners. She specifically says: more applicants selected in a second group. This is not the same as people being selected initially and not being told.

 

[Bramb90]

Wow Raevsky has certainly caused the post count to go through the roof!

Yes and this not the first time! I think he filled three pages in another thread because he was arguing with another user! Very annoying for those who are just looking for information and not irrelevant assumptions or arguments.

 

[raevsky]

Another interesting thing is Kirit Amin affidavit to court in DV-2012 lawsuit.
Bureau of Consular Affairs Chief Information Officer Kirt Amin testified before the court under penalty of perjury. He made it clear that the process of selection was not random because KCC forgot to connect randomizer to the process. He said that what happened was that entrants were selected in consecutive order, until certain moment of time. Those who submitted the entry before certain moment of time on October 6th, were selected, and those who submitted entries after that, were not. Just because the randomized call was commented out.
Then the plaintiffs mentioned several cases when one spouse submitted an entry first, and was not selected, but the other one submitted the entry second, and was selected. They submitted their affidavits to the court, under penalty of perjury. That clearly contradicted to Kirit Amin's affidavit
Kirit Amin submitted another affidavit to the court, saying that violation to the order could happen in 2% of cases. Under penalty of perjury.

However, plaintiffs were not satisfied and they produced so many cases where this rule was violated that is was clear it was much more than in 2% of cases.
However, the court ignored (after careful consideration) plaintiff's complaints saying Kirit Amin would not lie under penalty of perjury.

How would you explain that?
It is easy when you know about hidden winners. Both spouses were winners from the point of view of Kirit Amin. However, one of the spouses was an open winner, and the other one was a hidden winner. And a winner could be hidden even if he submitted his or her entry even before his spouse who became an open winner. So, in that case both spouses were selected as winners, and DOS new that, and that is what Kirit Amin testified about. However, one of the spouses was notified about selection (was an open winner), and the other one was not (was a hidden winner). Nothing simplier, and both were right. Kirit Amin knew both were winners, while both of them were confident only one was. What seems contradictory, was not contradictory at all if you know who hidden winners are.