IMPORTANT NOTICE: To check the status of your USA Green Card Lottery Entry, you need to login to your account from GreenCardService.org if you use the GreenCardService.org for Green Cacrd Lottery Entry.
IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ACCOUNT WITH GreenCardService.org, YOU WILL NEED TO CREAT ONE HERE: http://www.greencardservice.org/index.php?dispatch=profiles.add
1. The DV 2012 first drawing has been completely random. Please check the
"DV 2012 First Drawing Randomness" document for detailed explanation.
2. Item 8 of DECLARATION OF KIRIT AMIN, refers to the laws and is
highlighting parts of regulations of 22 CFR § 42.33(c), but it totally fails in
mapping the real events to the referred regulations. He says "the software we
used fail to randomize the DV entries" as the main point. His assumption that
the software failed to randomize is completely wrong. We need to clarify that it
didn't fail to randomize, it just failed to use the programmers expected method.
Actually the method which was unintentionally used, is a real random function
and as a matter of fact is a more random function comparing to most of pseudo
random functions that the programmer wanted to use one of them. (check
Appendix B section 2 of the "DV 2012 First Drawing Randomness" document
under the title "How to Generate Random Numbers" for detailed explanations).
3. The initial statement from DOS has been extremely MISLEADING by relating
the randomness of selections to the distribution of the selected people across
the registration period. DOS initial statement is the big mistake and completely
wrong. In general there is no direct relation between a standalone random
selection method or it's results with the day of the application being filed.
4. There are many unknown and unclear questions and concerns that need to be
addressed before proceeding to next step. no matter what will be the answer,
ambiguities need to be checked and clarified. "the method used is correct" or
"the method used needs to be changed", either way more time is needed to
choose the right answer.
Considering the facts including but not limited to the
following examples, obviously DOS is not clear on many of the questions
and concerns and they are not ready to rush into another drawing without
addressing all the concerns:
a. UNSTABLE explanations and data in the announcements and other
correspondences from DOS. e.g. In their first announcement they said
more than 90% of the people have been selected from the first two days,
while in the DECLARATION OF KIRIT AMIN, he says that 98% rather
than 90%.
b. CONTRADICTORY explanations and data in the announcements and
other correspondences from DOS. e.g. In "DECLARATION OF KIRIT
AMIN", the "2% of entries" and the "2% of winners" has been used
interchangeably which can NOT be correct. 2% of applicants doesn't
necessarily mean 2% of the selectees as well, unless the 2% applicants
from other days are distributed "normally" in between the applicants of
the first two days which is not true, otherwise it will be contradictory to
the item no 8 of "DECLARATION OF KIRIT AMIN" as it proves that
the DB optimization has been a random function.
c. AMBIGUOUS announcements with the nature of hiding some facts and
not being clear. e.g. first they announced that web site is down due to a
technical problem and they never mentioned anything about the doubts
and possibility of an error in the drawing itself.
5. "Visa" or "Initial Selection":
Talking about visa is a misleading statement, we are not requesting a visa to be
issued to this people, but we are asking that the status of being "selected for
further processing" be reinstated.
6. "Privilege" or "Right":
Any privilege given to people based on regulations after being assigned to
someone cannot be revoked without a reason. It can be cancelled only based
on law and regulations. So any privilege after being assigned creates a right to
the beneficiary of that privilege to use that privilege until another law or
regulation takes that privilege away.
As an example think of the driving license where it is a privilege and not a right,
but people who have got that privilege have the right to go to the court if their
driving license is revoked wrongfully.
7. Considering the fact that database has been automatically touching the data and
the order of data (when optimizing), it is clear that there has always been some
"not-controlled" factors integrated into the mechanics of drawing, which DOS
has been aware of and have always let it to be included in the selection process
without interrupting the integrity of the whole drawing.
(if this is an issue then more time is needed to fix this before any actions
including a possible second drawing, and if this is not an issue, as it is assumed
by DOS and declared by Kirt Amin, then the whole selection of this year is also
good because the error happened this year is of the same nature as to the
automatic optimization in the sense of being a "not-controlled" factor)
8. People have discarded their original confirmation code after first drawing as it
wasn't needed any more. They can't check the results of any other possible
drawing and this is a direct consequence of the cancellation of first drawing.
The solution from DOS for sending emails is not enough method for fixing this
problem, duo to possibilities like: changed email address, wrong email address,
uncertainty of email delivery methods(which doesn't assure that applicants
have received the confirmation email - We already know people who haven't
received that email).
Also considering the fact that DOS has always said that they will never send
any emails out to applicants, many people have discarded these emails even
though they may had received it. so we need time to recover this problem in
its best possible way.
9. It is to the public interest to make sure that the error has been reviewed
properly and will be recovered deploying the best possible methods. DOS
didn't have enough time to diagnose the error, therefore more time is needed to
review the details of error and to find best possible resolutions.
This error obviously needs more time than the 6-8 days DOS spent for this
purpose. The fact that even the OIG's internal investigation, after more than 40
days, is not yet done, is a good example showing the extent of time needed for
properly diagnosing such an important issue.
(DOS stopped the web site on about 6-7 May and they announced to public on
may the 13th. so they have had only 6-8 days to find, examine, diagnose the
situation, and to find a resolution which is clearly not enough time for such an
important situation.)
It is to the public interest to return the confidence and trust of the people back, to
the program specifically, and to the DOS and US government in general, by
showing that enough time and effort has been allocated for analyzing the
situation with any possible outcome and recovery suggestions.
The reputation has been extremely damaged and there are many questions and
doubts after such big mistakes and unorganized behaviors from DOS which shows the
extent of the need for allocating enough time for choosing the best possible path.
Rushing into a second drawing is not helping to anybody. Postponing the
drawing for assurance of the accuracy is much less harmful than rushing into a
second drawing with a very high chances of more mistakes which is very much
probable due to the instability and signs of inaccuracy seen in the
correspondences from DOS.
10. The regulations of 22 CFR § 42.33(c) is asking for selection only
between the applicants meeting all of the requirements of 22 CFR § 42.33(c),
while DOS has claimed (in one of their announcements or FAQ or on the site)
that they will run the drawing first and then they will check the validity of
applicants, which is clearly against the requirements of the regulations.
11. Worst Case Scenario: in the worst case, let's assume that the first
drawing needs to be cancelled for any reasons. DOS cannot be ignorant and
just choose the easiest solution and simply re-draw for a second time without
considering the fact that there has been a mistake before.
Therefore there is a need to postpone any other drawing until the proper methods
of recovery are examined and defined. There are many possibilities which are more fair
and are preferred choices minimizing the impact of the mistake on the affected
applicants while complying with all related legal and law requirements.
As an example, A solution suggests a method that ASSURES the re-selection of a
PORTION of the people who have won in the first drawing to be included in
the list of winners for the second drawing. Though this method is not inclusive,
it reduces the impacts while it complies with laws and regulations.
* NOTE: This document is not a self-explanatory document. You may need to have some background information or know the context for a better understanding.
By Babak Nouri, 07/10/11
