Appeal rejected, re-apply info needed please!

Hi folks,

Applied for MC, OC2 and OC3. The rejection happened at MC & OC3 with the below reasons as they don’t consider banking exp as a product-led. Significant contributions were listed including photos, speaking events, but they were all internal but no public events.

NOTE: For MC, I have shown contribution to a non-profit healthcare entity by implementing cloud solution beyond my role of duty substantiated with written evidence, and that has exponentially added to their $$ growth, along-with letter from CTO & CIO that has recognized all the work done so far with few Bank’s that has substantially increased their business growth:

For the mandatory criterion, in addition to the reference letters, the applicant has submitted further reference letters and a file detailing projects at the companies that the applicant has worked at. The letters do not detail how the applicant has been recognised as a leading talent. The other evidence file also does not show how the applicant is leading his field. There is nothing in the application that demonstrates sustained recognition as required by this criterion.

For OC3, the applicant has submitted a further reference letter and contributions to bank-x, bank-y, bank-z. For this criterion, applicants need to show a significant contribution to a product-led digital technology company. These banking institutions do not qualify for this visa’s definition of a product-led digital technology company and therefore this work cannot contribute to this criterion and therefore it is not met.


Appealed with the specific datapoints stating that although it doesn’t match their strict criteria of product-led org, but the implementation in the Bank’s technology solution using third-party products should be considered. Also, the recommendation letters from CTO and CIO of 2 major banks, and substantiated with written evidence of the business outcomes ($$mn/yr, expansion of business segment, etc…), photo evidences of awards, leading to organizations growth.


Mandatory Criteria – The applicant is a valued colleague and team
member however this is insufficient to demonstrate exceptional
talent within the sector. The evidence demonstrates the applicant
is effective in the role recruited for and expected to do. There is
also insufficient evidence to demonstrate an international or
national presence e.g. high profile speaking at industry leading
events or sector impacting articles and media or a sought after
expert advancing the field. The applicant has not met the
Mandatory Criteria.

OC3 – as per previous commentary and acknowledged by the
applicant a number of examples are not related to product led
digital technology companies and the evidence has been
assessed on that basis (for consistency and in line with
guidelines). The evidence provided does not provide clarity of
impact, results and outcomes as a direct result of the applicants
work e.g. specific commercial contribution, business performance
or customer impact in the context of a product led digital
technology organisation. The applicant has not met the criteria for


Since the appeal is rejected, the only option I’ve to re-file a new application. Kindly guide on what specific corrections can be done in Banking sector and how that can be shown as product-led growth. Also, any other inputs on fixing the MC content.

Your feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in Advance !!


For product-led issues: I would suggest you provide evidence that your sub-organization is digitalized and is able to distinguish between regular banks and digital banks. For example: you are working under the “digital banking” sub-organization. It does not matter about the primary company’s product, but it is more important to demonstrate the organization’s product digitally.

I hope this helps @anks007

I think you need to get acceptable industry led contributions and clarify that you work in a fintech or neo bank if that’s the case.

1 Like

Thanks folks for your response, shall factor into my reapplication.