Visa Bulletin: September 2013 (Coming Soon)

[raevsky]

So even though I am getting more reluctant about my initial theory of hidden numbers, I am absolutely confident much less amount of winners will be offered interviews (in percentage amount to total number of winners). Unless they increase requirement during the interview and refuse a huge percentage of visa applications for those who are invited to interviews.

 

[raevsky]

BTW, I really have absolutely no idea about what number 120000 came from (it was mentioned in the winning notification).

 

[SusieQQQ]

Do we know for absolute certain that each region has all numbers chronologically filled? Looking at the various numbers it almost seems to me as if it works like this: if there are 140000 winners, they give 140000 numbers (or actually fewer because some numbers have more than one winner attached ie derivatives), but numbers are not duplicated among regions (I guess this bit can easily be checked with some digging on the CEAC site). So if for example number 2345 is assigned to EU, there is no 2345 number for AF etc. The max numbers per region are then assigned based on number of winners per region, relative to total winners. (This latter assertion would imply that above a certain number, all numbers are African.) I'm not sure if I've explained my thinking entirely clearly, but does this make sense to anyone else? It would certainly explain why some numbers per region seem so high, but the overall max number is always within the overall number of winners.

 

[ceskhermina]

what is happening with Albania?

 

[luck_boy]

gabbam please reply me

hank you for your inquiry.

Your forms have been received and pending further embassy review for the continuation of your visa processing.
this is the reply I got from KCC while doing inquiry upon my case processing why they said its pending and embassy review I am afraid about it

 

[gabam]

hank you for your inquiry.

Your forms have been received and pending further embassy review for the continuation of your visa processing.
this is the reply I got from KCC while doing inquiry upon my case processing why they said its pending and embassy review I am afraid about it

It is a normal reply I guess. When your number gets current, you will get the 2nd NL then. If you really have concerns then you can also talk with KCC on the phone, they are wonderful and friendly people.

 

[Sergey6116]

Approximately 140,660 applicants have been registered and notified and may now make an application for an immigrant visa.

Only I think that this is too much ?

 

[gokhan8282]

Guys. i am in first 8000 for EU. What am i going to do now? Should i check my status?

 

[Britsimon]

Guys. i am in first 8000 for EU. What am i going to do now? Should i check my status?

Congratulations. You will get an email in a few days telling you to check your status. Check now if you like to torment yourself, or simply wait for the email - your choice!

 

[SMTG34]

hank you for your inquiry.

Your forms have been received and pending further embassy review for the continuation of your visa processing.
this is the reply I got from KCC while doing inquiry upon my case processing why they said its pending and embassy review I am afraid about it

Thank you for your inquiry.

Your forms have been received and are currently processing. Allow several weeks for processing. Interviews are scheduled numerically based on case numbers that have completed processing.

Please refer to the visa bulletin on our website at www.travel.state.gov after the 15th of August to locate the current numbers being processed.
This is the one i received from KCC as the confirmation letter...

 

[Kayend]

Do we know for absolute certain that each region has all numbers chronologically filled? Looking at the various numbers it almost seems to me as if it works like this: if there are 140000 winners, they give 140000 numbers (or actually fewer because some numbers have more than one winner attached ie derivatives), but numbers are not duplicated among regions (I guess this bit can easily be checked with some digging on the CEAC site). So if for example number 2345 is assigned to EU, there is no 2345 number for AF etc. The max numbers per region are then assigned based on number of winners per region, relative to total winners. (This latter assertion would imply that above a certain number, all numbers are African.) I'm not sure if I've explained my thinking entirely clearly, but does this make sense to anyone else? It would certainly explain why some numbers per region seem so high, but the overall max number is always within the overall number of winners.

No, it do have duplicate # across regions. At least it is like that in DV13 and before and I don't think they change it. Once CEAC are open for DV14, the easiest to check is NA region since their winners are smaller in number compare to other regions.

 

[Britsimon]

Do we know for absolute certain that each region has all numbers chronologically filled? Looking at the various numbers it almost seems to me as if it works like this: if there are 140000 winners, they give 140000 numbers (or actually fewer because some numbers have more than one winner attached ie derivatives), but numbers are not duplicated among regions (I guess this bit can easily be checked with some digging on the CEAC site). So if for example number 2345 is assigned to EU, there is no 2345 number for AF etc. The max numbers per region are then assigned based on number of winners per region, relative to total winners. (This latter assertion would imply that above a certain number, all numbers are African.) I'm not sure if I've explained my thinking entirely clearly, but does this make sense to anyone else? It would certainly explain why some numbers per region seem so high, but the overall max number is always within the overall number of winners.

Sorry Susie, I think both those assertions are incorrect. The first certainly is – yes I have seen CEAC numbers such as EU1 and AS1 (they drop the leading zeros on CEAC). So in your example 2345 could be assigned in EU and AF. As Kayend says, this will be possible to prove again for DV2014 within a few days.

I am also 100% convinced that one winner CN has derivatives attached – again I have seen that in CEAC data and I have seen consecutive numbers with not enough gaps for derivatives so – EU1 has 1 winner and 3 derivatives and EU2 is the next number (so they haven’t left space to account for derivatives.

For the second assertion I don’t think that can be right since it would suggest they skew/interfere with the numbers based on country/region and I think that would create problems of being unfair/un-random.

 

[SusieQQQ]

hank you for your inquiry.

Your forms have been received and pending further embassy review for the continuation of your visa processing.
this is the reply I got from KCC while doing inquiry upon my case processing why they said its pending and embassy review I am afraid about it

It is a normal reply I guess. When your number gets current, you will get the 2nd NL then. If you really have concerns then you can also talk with KCC on the phone, they are wonderful and friendly people.

I don't know, to be honest. My first thought was it's normal, but that wasn't the response I received when I checked. Luck_boy, are you either (1) a low number winner who would have an interview quite soon, or (2) from a country where administrative processing is usual?

 

[SusieQQQ]

No, it do have duplicate # across regions. At least it is like that in DV13 and before and I don't think they change it. Once CEAC are open for DV14, the easiest to check is NA region since their winners are smaller in number compare to other regions.

Sorry Susie, I think both those assertions are incorrect. The first certainly is – yes I have seen CEAC numbers such as EU1 and AS1 (they drop the leading zeros on CEAC). So in your example 2345 could be assigned in EU and AF. As Kayend says, this will be possible to prove again for DV2014 within a few days.

I am also 100% convinced that one winner CN has derivatives attached – again I have seen that in CEAC data and I have seen consecutive numbers with not enough gaps for derivatives so – EU1 has 1 winner and 3 derivatives and EU2 is the next number (so they haven’t left space to account for derivatives.

For the second assertion I don’t think that can be right since it would suggest they skew/interfere with the numbers based on country/region and I think that would create problems of being unfair/un-random.

Ok, fair enough, it was just a theory

Although britsimon - on your second point I don't agree, winners would still be random, it would just be how the numbers were assigned to those winners. But moot apparently anyway.

 

[Kayend]

Asia and Africa definitely need to do some catch up, if not a lot of people will be disappointed in DV14.

Europe start with 8000 and the highest case # reported is 55000, so it start with 14.5%
Asia start with 1800 and the highest case # reported is 27000, so it start with 6.6%
Africa start with 7500 and the highest case # reported is 105000, so it start with 7.1%

But I think Africa and Asia have a slow start might due to the temporary closure of 19 US embassies across North Africa and Middle East. Based on what I understand is that, Visa Office need to work with US embassy or consulate post to get the visa interview scheduled and that normally happen in 1st-10th of the month and those embassies closure is just right into that period.

I might be wrong but this is what I understand from http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/Immigrant%20Visa%20Control%20System_operation%20of.pdf

At the beginning of each month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily qualified immigrant visa applicants in categories subject to
numerical limitation. Cases are grouped by foreign state chargeability/preference/priority date.
No names are reported. During the first week of each month, this documentarily qualified
demand is tabulated.

 

[Britsimon]

Ok, fair enough, it was just a theory

Although britsimon - on your second point I don't agree, winners would still be random, it would just be how the numbers were assigned to those winners. But moot apparently anyway.

Yeah I hear you - I just think since the number has significance for order of processing (and therefore chances of losing out), it would be odd to introduce a level of interference with that by controlling the number ranges - it might not actually create an unfair process but it would seem odd. Anyway - might well be moot as you say.

 

[SusieQQQ]

Yeah I hear you - I just think since the number has significance for order of processing (and therefore chances of losing out), it would be odd to introduce a level of interference with that by controlling the number ranges - it might not actually create an unfair process but it would seem odd. Anyway - might well be moot as you say.

What I meant was just that it was an alternative way of assigning numbers - no difference in anything including order of interview etc, just that the actual case number might be different.

 

[mickyro1]

VB september 2013 EU

EUROPE

ALBANIA 3,289 GEORGIA 806 NORTHERN IRELAND 37
ANDORRA 2 GERMANY 1,696 NORWAY 63
ARMENIA 2,221 GREECE 230 POLAND 1,552
AUSTRIA 150 HUNGARY 363 PORTUGAL 124
AZERBAIJAN 494 ICELAND 49 Macau 12
BELARUS 1,873 IRELAND 175 ROMANIA 1,245
BELGIUM 120 ITALY 787 RUSSIA 4,544
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA 153 KAZAKHSTAN 784 SAN MARINO 1
BULGARIA 1,957 KOSOVO 257 SERBIA 582
CROATIA 125 KYRGYZSTAN 537 SLOVAKIA 115
CYPRUS 24 LATVIA 147 SLOVENIA 14
CZECH REPUBLIC 133 LIECHTENSTEIN 1 SPAIN 485
DENMARK 103 LITHUANIA 385 Western Sahara 1
Greenland 1

LUXEMBOURG 13 SWEDEN 225
ESTONIA 75 MACEDONIA 421 SWITZERLAND 224
FINLAND 111 MALTA 6 TAJIKISTAN 531
FRANCE 958 MOLDOVA 2,903 TURKEY 3,972
French Polynesia 8 MONACO 2 TURKMENISTAN 216
French Southern and MONTENEGRO 20 UKRAINE 6,009
Antarctic Territories 4 NETHERLANDS 225 UZBEKISTAN 5,014
New Caledonia 1 Aruba 6 VATICAN CITY 0
Saint Martin 2 Curacao 4
Sint Maarten 2

 

[mickyro1]

cut-off

The Department of State also has available a recorded message with visa cut-off dates which can be heard at: (202) 663-1541. The recording is normally updated on/about the 10th of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.

 

[raevsky]

Do we know for absolute certain that each region has all numbers chronologically filled? Looking at the various numbers it almost seems to me as if it works like this: if there are 140000 winners, they give 140000 numbers (or actually fewer because some numbers have more than one winner attached ie derivatives), but numbers are not duplicated among regions (I guess this bit can easily be checked with some digging on the CEAC site). So if for example number 2345 is assigned to EU, there is no 2345 number for AF etc. The max numbers per region are then assigned based on number of winners per region, relative to total winners. (This latter assertion would imply that above a certain number, all numbers are African.) I'm not sure if I've explained my thinking entirely clearly, but does this make sense to anyone else? It would certainly explain why some numbers per region seem so high, but the overall max number is always within the overall number of winners.

That is incorrect. Number 197 is present in all regions except NA.