Hide table of contents

Here's the link to apply: https://dvprogram.state.gov

Each year, the United States runs a lottery for Green Cards (permanent residence visas). If you think you'd have a higher impact working in the United States, consider applying by this year's deadline,  7 November 2023.

I wrote a long-form description of the process to apply last year, which provides a useful guide. That post was reviewed by a United States immigration lawyer and I don't think anything significant has changed, but make sure to read (or at least skim) the US State Dept DV-2025 Instructions in addition to my explainer.

In short:

  • The US issues around 55,000 green cards each year via a lottery.
  • Unless you were born in a country which already has really significant migration to the US (list below, but note that UK born people can apply this year), you can probably enter that lottery.
  • Even if you were born in an ineligible country, you could be eligible if your parents or spouse were born in an eligible country.
  • It does not cost you any money to enter, you don't need a passport to enter, you can do it online, and it probably won't take much of your time!
  • Your chance of success in a given year as an individual ranges from around 0.28% (worst success rate for Asia region in 2007-2021 fiscal years) to around 10.03% (best success rate for Oceania region in 2007-2021 fiscal years).
  • You can increase your probability of success by having a spouse (or partner who you would be willing to marry if selected) who also applies - only one of you needs to be selected for you both to move.
  • This is a game you can play every year, increasing your chances a fair bit (see the table below).
  • I don't know how many EAs applied last year after seeing my post, but I've been in contact with 14 people who entered the lottery and know of at least two people who were successful. 
  • Do consider whether you applying to the Diversity Lottery is, on expectation, good for the world. This is a zero-sum game, so your success comes at another applicant's expense - but if you expect to be more effective doing direct work or even expect to increase your earnings and, thus, your donations then I think it's a good idea to apply.
  • There are some legal risks to consider, but I think these are mostly pretty theoretical. They are discussed in last year's long-form description of the process to apply.
  • Finally, if you are going to apply, don't forget! The deadline is 7 November 2023 at 12.00pm ET, but anecdotally the submission system is usually pretty overloaded in the last week, so consider applying earlier if you can.

Even if you have a low chance of success, the E(V) is good:

For most folks looking at doing direct EA work, it probably doesn't even make sense to think through the probabilities - the E(V) is straightforwardly positive. But what about someone who is on the fence, and is perhaps focussed just on earning to give?

Even at a really pessimistic 0.28% chance (worst historical selection probability for folks in the 'Asia' geographic region) and a USD50 value on an hour of your time (assume 1h to apply, and 4h if selected to decide whether to continue) it all breaks even on expectation if you think you/the world gets USD 75000 of benefit (lifetime, not annual) from you moving to the USA.  Even if you only spent 10 years in the US, you'd make that back if moving to the US increased your earnings by just USD 7500/y.

If your time is suuuuper scarce and you can't really see yourself having impact in the US, then don't apply. Otherwise I suggest you give it some thought!

Countries whose chargeable nationals can't apply this year

Note that this application round UK nationals once again qualify - this will likely be of interest to UK EAs who were unable to apply last year. The list is otherwise unchanged.

You are ineligible for the application round if you were born in one of the following countries:

Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, The People’s Republic of China (including mainland and Hong Kong born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea (South Korea), Venezuela, and Vietnam.

Natives of Macau SAR and Taiwan are eligible.

However, a person who is a native of one of the ineligible countries below may be able to qualify by 'charging' (don't ask me why they call it this!) to another country on the basis of their own spousal or parental circumstances. Basically, you might be able to claim your parent's or spouse's country of birth for the purpose of qualifying for the lottery

Disclaimer: I'm a lawyer, but not a United States lawyer. This isn't legal advice. If you think you need legal advice, speak to a United States immigration lawyer. If you need help finding a United States immigration lawyer, DM me and I can try to help.

Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I would've ignored this important opportunity if not for this post (because I was not aware that UK situation had changed this year). Thank you Tyrone!

Thanks for writing this PSA, this was interesting! Re: the list of eligible countries, if I'm understanding your long-form post correctly, where you live and what nationality you have don't matter for this process, which took me a while to understand.

So I'm wondering if this paragraph:

  • Unless you live in a country which already has really significant migration to the US (list below, but note that UK nationals can apply this year), you can probably enter that lottery.

Would be clearer if rephrased as:

  • Unless you were born in a country which already has really significant migration to the US (list below, but note that UK born people can apply this year), you can probably enter that lottery.
  • Even if you were born in an ineligible country, you could be eligible if your parents or spouse were born in an eligible country.

And same note for this paragraph:

Countries whose chargeable nationals can't apply this year

Note that this application round UK nationals once again qualify - this will likely be of interest to UK EAs who were unable to apply last year. The list is otherwise unchanged.

To something like, "You are ineligible for the application round if you were born in one of the following countries", and swap out the word "nationals".

Thanks heaps Angelina - I agree. Thanks for pointing out the need for clarification.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
This work has come out of my Undergraduate dissertation. I haven't shared or discussed these results much before putting this up.  Message me if you'd like the code :) Edit: 16th April. After helpful comments, especially from Geoffrey, I now believe this method only identifies shifts in the happiness scale (not stretches). Have edited to make this clearer. TLDR * Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.” * Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling. * I test rescaling using long-run German panel data, looking at whether the association between reported happiness and three “get-me-out-of-here” actions (divorce, job resignation, and hospitalisation) changes over time. * If people are getting happier (and rescaling is occuring) the probability of these actions should become less linked to reported LS — but they don’t. * I find little evidence of rescaling. We should probably take self-reported happiness scores at face value. 1. Background: The Happiness Paradox Humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives in history — yet we seem no seem for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flatover the last few decades, even in countries like Germany, the UK, China, and India that have experienced huge GDP growth. As Michael Plant has written, the empirical evidence for this is fairly strong. This is the Easterlin Paradox. It is a paradox, because at a point in time, income is strongly linked to happiness, as I've written on the forum before. This should feel uncomfortable for anyone who believes that economic progress should make lives better — including (me) and others in the EA/Progress Studies worlds. Assuming agree on the empirical facts (i.e., self-reported happiness isn't increasing), there are a few potential explanations: * Hedonic adaptation: as life gets
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal