The latest extract of the CEAC data produced an interesting finding. This year (and last year) the script that produced the csv file would occasionally misalign the columns of data for a row of data, adding an extra column. It was rare and was affecting about 5 rows globally up to the most recent file – so I adjusted the alignment manually and never bothered to look into what was the cause.
Then on the final DV2015 extract I got hundreds of misaligned rows. The fix is to delete a field and move the columns for that one row but for hundreds of columns I did not want to do that manually. So – I looked into it more carefully. Here is what the data shows for an example case 2015AS221. Up until a few days ago that case had three family members listed in the lower section, the principal derivative number 01, and then two family members 02 and 03. Now, that case has had the 01 (principal) winner removed. It seems that winner was disqualified. The derivatives are still on the case but could not be issued of course.
There are quite a number of these cases that have suddenly appeared.
290 in Africa
564 in Europe
98 in Asia
12 in South America
45 in Oceana
Now – those are only the case that have had the principal removed but family members remain in the system. There must also be some cases where there were no family members – and those cases would be missing from CEAC. Checking that I found that the number of cases removed within the last two weeks (including those above) are:-
AF – 573
EU – 1049
AS – 154
SA – 26
OC – 100
That is a lot of cases – and of course all the family members would be ineligible to process their cases once the principal was deleted.
OK – so what does this mean. Well we know that many selectees are disqualified prior to the winners being notified. This would mainly be entries that the KCC systems had identified as fraudulent – usually for multiple entries. Those cases appear as “holes” or gaps between the numbers. THESE cases were notified, submitted their DS260 and were even scheduled. At some point they were removed, and the nature of the sudden mass update (across many embassies) tells me that KCC were involved in the deletion of these cases. So – that suggests that something happened to disqualify these cases rather than “refuse” them at the interview. To me that suggests multiple entry disqualifications, but that is just speculation on my part. I’d be happy to hear other theories on what could be the reason – or hear from anyone that is in this scenario and wants to honestly discuss it.
I’ll be publishing the final CEAC data this afternoon and over the next few days I will publish analysis of that data and start talking about applying that information to 2016 to try and draw some conclusions.
October 4, 2015 at 20:15
My case no is AF2015 61xxx & most probably have remove prior to interview notifications , pls advise what action to be taken.
October 5, 2015 at 00:17
Your number was too high, never became current. There is nothing you can do. It is over. Try entering DV2017.
October 4, 2015 at 20:20
would you please publish the sept 30 CEAC extract. thank you a lot!
October 5, 2015 at 00:16
Yes, as I always do (even when people don’t ask me!)
October 4, 2015 at 20:22
No more action. DV 2015 ended
October 4, 2015 at 20:28
Could any of this be the background checks they run before the interviews? Or would that only make sense for previous U.S. stays?
October 5, 2015 at 00:15
Probably, yes.. The background checks probably red flagged cases.
October 4, 2015 at 22:30
The first type of exclusions are exclusions because members of the family submitted the firms but not the primary applicant. They were waiting for him to submit his form until the end of the year, but he did not, only dependents did
October 5, 2015 at 00:08
No, that is not correct at all. The case was scheduled – meaning the DS260 was submitted!
October 5, 2015 at 17:37
Does that mean that they had their interview appointments and were denied visas at the respective embassies, but, in fact, it was the KCC who had denied those visas long before the interview? Did I get it right? Thank you.
October 5, 2015 at 17:54
Up to this finding we have believed that KCC don’t disqualify cases after the initial notification. What this data proves is that KCC at least have some central role in this type of disqualification, even if it is simply performing the update after the embassy has disqualified the case (as opposed to refused the case).
October 4, 2015 at 22:32
The second type of exclusion occurred when the primary applicant submitted the DS-260 form, but without certification. One the certification was not received by the end of the year, the form was removed.
October 5, 2015 at 00:09
No, that is not correct either – no certificates are presented until interview, and lack of certificates would result in denial.
October 5, 2015 at 00:16
What I mean is “I certify that I have read and understand the above. I am now ready to begin the immigrant visa and alien registration application process. Blah Blah Blah…” and a small checkmark, all on DS-260 form.
October 5, 2015 at 00:18
Again. No. Ifg the form is not submitted, it would never have been scheduled. These cases were scheduled.
October 5, 2015 at 00:19
It is definitely possible to submit DS-260 only for primary applicant, without dependents. Is it not possible to do otherwise, what means you submit dependents without primary?!
October 5, 2015 at 00:26
How do you know the case was scheduled? Status Ready? Or do you know the winner?
October 5, 2015 at 05:45
Cases not scheduled would be “at NVC”
October 5, 2015 at 01:29
it would happen for DV2016 or not? Is this reason for final cut off low for dv2015 ? What you think?
October 5, 2015 at 03:59
Thanks again for your help
Am that guy who missed the visa just because of not submitting high school certificate, it was not our fault because the certificate was supposed to be sent by the ministry of education in our country, we had paid the money and we had areceipt showing they will send the certificate,only that their was adelay but they sent it the second day after our interview. We were put under Ap..expected acall last week nothing came in i had sold my piece of land to do the process from medical money, Interview, And tickets…now am sudden that its over..may God bless you for the good work u have done whoever reading this please remember us in prayer because this is the most difficult situation am going through, lost my job, my land, now am starting from zero. God bless u
October 5, 2015 at 05:43
It is a tough lesson to learn. I wish you luck as you reconstruct your life!!!
October 5, 2015 at 11:58
You theory is not correct, Brit
Some numbers got visas issued though the primary applicant was removed. Look at
Moreover, in case of number AS6425 two dependents had visas issued, 02 and 03, while primary was removed
Those are the cases where the primary applicant has died by the moment of visa issuance.
In case of AF1295 and EU31736 both 01 and 02 were removed, but dependents 03 is still there. That means husband and wife have died, but the child got visa issued.
October 5, 2015 at 15:05
I don’t really see what part you think is disproven.
2015AS6425 is an interesting case – but it either means CEAC data is incorrect (possible) OR the case was disqualified after issuance (also possible).
Regarding the case where a principal has died before entry into the USA, without the principal, the derivatives cannot enter. But what makes you think there were deaths? And why would KCC remove the case….
October 5, 2015 at 15:30
This statement is incorrect – and of course all the family members would be ineligible to process their cases once the principal was deleted. We see cases where dependents could get a visa without a principal.
The only case when it is allowed is in case of death of principal. Clear and convincing.
October 5, 2015 at 16:50
Derivatives cannot enter the USA to activate their status if the principal is not with them OR has entered previously. So – in the case of the death of a principal after issuance and before entry, the derivatives cannot emigrate.
October 5, 2015 at 17:20
Some lawyers think contrary to that. The CEAC data proves they are right and DOS is wrong in claiming that on the instructions, provided CEAC data is correct. If principal is disqualified AFTER dependents were issued visas, dependents are be disqualified too. It is also very unlikely CEAC data is incorrect. It is much more likely those lawyers are right.
October 5, 2015 at 17:50
I’m sorry – but that is ridiculous.
1. We have proof that CEAC is often incorrect.
2. “Some lawyers” – Very few lawyers have a clue about DV. But those that agree with you should read the following simple to understand statement.
9 FAM 42.33 N5.2-2 In Death of Principal Beneficiary and/or Applicant
The death of the principal beneficiary and/or applicant must result in the automatic revocation of the application. Thereafter, derivative beneficiaries are no longer entitled to the DV classification.
October 5, 2015 at 17:57
And we also have proof that when law or policy level document is complementary or contrary to 9 FAM, the law or policy level document still works.
October 5, 2015 at 18:04
But this is directly supported by the INA – and supported by numerous other aspects of law and procedure including the visa classifications themselves. But it seems you are not interested in the law, or facts, or simple logic, you would rather believe what you want to believe. That is up to you…
October 5, 2015 at 19:13
That was exactly the same logic for elective cross-charging until 9 FAM confirmed the opposite. So we know this logic is false.
October 5, 2015 at 19:23
No, not at all. for elective cross charging, there was always an element of doubt and the three examples did not cover the fourth scenario. The change for that was an additional example.
The death scenario is covered in INA 204(I), which was a change written prior to the 9 FAM note I mentioned earlier.
Honestly – I am tired of going round and round with you on something so clear and so trivial. I don’t understand your motivation to drill into this in such detail, and it is very difficult to explain things to someone that refuses to accept clear evidence and simply made points. As I said earlier – feel free to believe whatever you like, I am not going to waste any more time debating you.
October 5, 2015 at 19:47
USCIS operates 204(I) in the following way – http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2011/January/Death-of-Qualifying-Relative.pdf contrary to what was described here. Best lawyers are saying this is also true for DV lottery.
October 5, 2015 at 20:00
“Best lawyers are saying this is also true for DV lottery.”
The policy memo you quote is quite clearly listing the types of visas that can be covered – and DV is not on that list. Did you read this at all?
October 5, 2015 at 20:12
My theory is that the deleted cases are of people whose background check by KCC (when processing DS-260 ) revealed something alarming enough that KCC decided they do not want those people even interviewed ( in case those applicant showed up with perfect documents) so it wouldn’t put the COs in the awkward position of having to “come up” with a reason for denial.
October 5, 2015 at 22:46
October 5, 2015 at 21:37
I have read it. Have you read this:
The FAM states that the death of the principal applicant will result in the automatic revocation of the application and the derivative beneficiaries will no longer be entitled to DV classification.30 However, H. Edward Odom, Chief, Advisory Opinion Division, DOS Directorate of Visa Services, had previously expressed a more lenient policy, stating:
Since a DV applicant is instructed to list the spouse’s name and date and place of birth in the petition with which they registered for DV eligibility, the visa office believes that when the principal registrant dies before he has an opportunity to apply for a DV visa or adjustment of status, the spouse listed on the petition may be considered an alternate principal applicant. Therefore, if the spouse was listed on the DV petition, she can apply for a DV visa after the death of her spouse, as if she was the principal applicant.31
Same issue as with elective cross charging
October 5, 2015 at 22:44
So you read it and decided to ignore it.
Regarding the Odum quote, yes I have read it. That extract is taken from a letter written by Odum to a lawyer in 1996. Yes, I said 1996. 19 years ago. This view held by Odum was not implemented then, NOR has it ever become part of law, or policy, or procedure. The law changes that WERE made (204(I)) don’t apply to DV applicants, the DV policy is clearly laid out (I provided it earlier).
So – if you or some lawyer can persuade some poor naïve person to pay to argue this point, regardless of the law, the policies and procedures – then go ahead.
And no. Again. Not the same as elective cross charging. Different by a mile – but that is just common sense talking.
October 5, 2015 at 21:39
@Apple. KCC cannot adjudicate a winning notifications
October 5, 2015 at 23:08
If not, what do you think is happening? KCC cannot adjudicate (in particularly, deny) a case once it has been checked by a winner, consular affairs specifically pointed that out to KCC. Any better suggestions?
October 5, 2015 at 23:40
KCC can flag a file as suspicious, send it to the embassy, and have the embassy confirm they want to disqualify that case based on evidence provided by KCC, or the embassy might decide to interview the applicant. So – in the article above I have not suggested that KCC have deleted cases without input fro the embassy, but the final deletion looks to be “central”. So – we don’t know exactly what it means….
October 6, 2015 at 07:17
@Gamadrili: IF it was a national security issue, then It wouldn’t be the first time the law didin’t apply…or may be KCC got a special permission/instructions for those cases…I am just speculating; no one can tell for sure 🙂
October 5, 2015 at 23:45
But consulate cannot adjudicate primary applicant without a personal interview. Even if there was one, the main question is how can a derivative get a visa if primary has not got it. If primary was unissued the visa, the same would happen with all derivatives.
October 6, 2015 at 00:04
And we are back to CEAC might not be accurate….
October 6, 2015 at 13:57
Looks like those changes are provided by consulates in bunches, same as status updates before. Each consulate at a time. Some consulates have not provided changes yet. And they will do that soon.
October 6, 2015 at 14:21
That isn’t what happened, and that is not how it happened before….
October 15, 2015 at 07:55
my case no 7737 from asia. Is there any chances for us also..
October 15, 2015 at 13:12
I cannot be sure at this point – you have to wait and see.
October 23, 2015 at 14:09
If a case was initially ordered for CP and later transferred to AOS, the case could initially appear in CEAC system, but could be later removed from it (during the last 2 weeks). Also, if a principal applicant succeeded doing AOS, and later dependents got visa issued via CP, a dependent could appear in CEAC system without a principal.
October 23, 2015 at 20:36
No, this is not the case. The cases we are talking about (many cases) were scheduled at embassies. For that to be the case and then later switched to AoS would be VERY rare. AoS is already only 5% or so of all cases. So this would affect maybe 1% of the 5% – maybe a handful of cases.
So – nope – this theory doesn’t make sense.
November 11, 2015 at 05:16
I there. I applied for a friend, he was selected, he sent DS 260 forms where he added a spouse who wasnt in the original application. Now when we try to check case status on CEAC website, it says “Invalid Immigrant Visa Case Number.” What does that mean?…am sure I’ve entered the case correctly by omitting the zeros after AF and before the number
November 11, 2015 at 07:25
2016 data is not loaded into CEAC yet.
November 16, 2015 at 14:15
An interesting story of entry 2015EU2701 has been described at a Russian forum.It is right about a number that was later removed from CEAC system.
The winner was contacted by an agent in May 2014 and was asked to pay $7000 for the win. He refused to pay.
On March 18th 2015 he was finally given his CN by the agent, and he saw his DS-260 had already been submitted by the agent with two family members – a wife and a child whom he did not know. He was single and had ever been.
Also, his country of residence was listed as Poland (he had never lived in Poland, he lived in Ukraine and was native of Ukraine). He called KCC and asked to unblock his DS-260 form. The form was unblocked on April 1st 2015, he made changes, removed family members he did not know, changed country of residence and asked for an interview in Kyiv, Ukraine.
His interview was on June 25th. The consul told him he would be put onto administrative processing. On October 12th (!, after the year end) he was finaly denied by email because he had not included 2 family members into his original entry.
The tracing of CEAC for this number was the following:
2015EU2701 File Date Status Family members Status Date Consulate
filled by an agent 18-Mar at NVC No date
unblocked DS-260 1-Apr
1-Apr at NVC No date
16-Apr at NVC No date
1-May In Transit 1 No date
15-May Ready 3 15-May KEV
4-Jun Ready 3 19-May KEV
12-Jun Ready 3 19-May KEV
24-Jun Ready 1 24-Jun KEV
Interview 25-Jun KEV
30-Jun Ready 1 26-Jun KEV
10-Jul Ready 1 26-Jun KEV
1-Aug Ready 1 30-Jul KEV
17-Aug Ready 1 6-Aug KEV
31-Aug Ready 1 28-Aug KEV
15-Sep Ready 1 10-Sep KEV
3-Oct Ready 1 10-Sep KEV
Received final denial 11-Oct
13-Nov No data Removed from CEAC
November 16, 2015 at 14:43
So that tends to support the theory about a disqualification based on fraudulent entry. These agents are really bad news.
November 16, 2015 at 15:31
So, the case proceeded to the interview, but the consular officer did not make a final refusal at the interview. Instead, something happened later, probably, consular anti-fraud department took over the case and investigated it. It finally never reached adjudication, and the final refusal arrived after the year end right because of the year end. However, there is no guarantee all removed cases are like this one. But that is a good start
November 16, 2015 at 16:06
Well I don’t agree it was refused because of year end – there are plenty of cases left in the system that time out. This was clearly removed because of some level of disqualification more serious that a regular refusal/time out. This may be important to create a list of people who will be barred from future DV entry.
November 16, 2015 at 16:32
Agreed about the first part. I do not agree about the second part – several thousand people per year in this list would be nothing compared to 14 mln submitted yearly.
November 16, 2015 at 16:59
I think you underestimate the efforts to track people that are trying to cheat the DV system. There are organized gangs of “agents” that submit fraudulent entries. The anti fraud efforts will focus on names/addresses/emails/IP addresses that have been connected to any of these agents known to have been involved with fraudulent entries. I’m sure it is used to filter out fraudulent entries – remember some regions have around 20% fraudulent entries.
November 16, 2015 at 17:18
The thing that is still unclear to me why they would show the agents the entry was in fact treated differently from others (by removing it from CEAC). They could still add it to whatever list they maintain without affecting CEAC system.
November 16, 2015 at 17:29
I think it may be precisely BECAUSE it sends a message….
November 16, 2015 at 18:33
Brits,you said they tract IP address,emails.. This dv2017 i have helped most of my friends around 20,using my laptop connected to the same IP to all entries. Some people share email address. Does this fall into agent issue,and the software for random selection will take whole entries as a fraudent one…or perhaps you may enlighten me more on agent issue and how do they keep tract it
November 16, 2015 at 20:47
If they found a fraudulent entry, especially if they learned of the agent trying to demand money or add a derivative, they would then use whatever methods they could to identify entries from that agent. Using an agent is illegal, so what they are looking for is agents/people who are trying to exploit the process…
November 17, 2015 at 08:05
Brits,thank you. That means all that will be done after selection of selectee has been passed.. IP issues has nothing to do during selection if the form is accurate and no multiple entry
November 17, 2015 at 15:15
The largest deletion of cases comes before the May results are released. That is why there are so many holes between the numbers.
November 17, 2015 at 12:13
What do you mean by saying it is illegal to use an agent? I think DOS encourages completing the entry without an agent, but that is not a requirement
November 17, 2015 at 15:08
When did I say it is illegal to use an agent????
November 17, 2015 at 20:21
On November 16, 2015 at 8:47 pm
>Using an agent is illegal
November 19, 2015 at 15:07
Entry 2015EU2701 is still present in the final file as of October 3rd. But it is not present in CEAC data now. That means a number of entries were removed from CEAC after October 3rd. Brit, can you rerun DV-2015 NOW?
November 19, 2015 at 18:09
When I get the chance, yes.
November 19, 2015 at 23:10
Thank you, Brit
January 14, 2016 at 12:33
According to http://forums.immigration.com/threads/dv2015-summary.329553/ , the number 2014AF00076071 is one of these deleted. It was present in CEAC data https://britsimonsays.com/final-dv2014-ceac-data/ but is no longer in CEAC right now.
So, the official explanation for the mass deletion is ” the embassy ran short of visa numbers for applicants whose visas were approved for DV 2014″. Of course, we know that the worldwide quota did not exceed 55000. But those deleted numbers were present in every region, so that is logical to assume regional quotas were exceeded for every region (possibly except NA)
January 14, 2016 at 16:47
I don’t follow your logic at all. You are connecting two unconnected things.
December 10, 2016 at 06:29
Hi my case is isl2010***123 we have interview scheduled for the 15th of this month on ceac website case status was READY with 6 cases but today when i checked on ceac its showing only 4 cases ready can u plz explain what happen n what should i do?
December 10, 2016 at 06:56
I only advise on DV lottery cases.
March 8, 2018 at 05:49
DV 2018 here.
What does it mean when one derivative number is removed. e.g having 2018AF14000 01
and 2018AF14000 02 then a few weeks to the interview the CEAC page no longer displays the derivative number?
March 8, 2018 at 06:01
I imagine a derivative has aged out perhaps?
March 8, 2018 at 07:26
Thank you for your timely response and yes but using the CPSA he still qualifies. Wondering why KCC would see it worthwhile to include the derivative and the embassy takes it down. Am assuming the embassy removed the case when they got it. Do you think it means denial ? And do you think the derivative should attend the interview ?
March 8, 2018 at 14:58
It often happens, which is why I was able to guess correctly. The embassy may or may not know the CSPA rule in relation to DV cases. I strongly suggest you read my article and print out their memo. Attend with the derivative and email the embassy to inform them that you are bringing your derivative because of CSPA protection.
March 8, 2018 at 17:07
Just sent them an email. Wonder if they’ll respond in time before next week Tuesday when the interview takes place. Wish I noticed earlier but anyhu cheers for the advice! Have a good’un.