Appeal Submission Guidance + Assessment Concerns

[Isabella]

Hi everyone,

I’m currently preparing my appeal for a Global Talent refusal and wanted to get clarity on the best way to structure the submission, especially when the rejection covers more than four reasons.

In my case, the assessor listed five rejection points, covering both Mandatory Criteria and two Optional Criteria (OC1 and OC3). However, the endorsement review form only allows space for four rejection responses. Does anyone know if it’s acceptable to attach a PDF of my full appeal and simply refer to it in the review form, rather than compressing it or leaving a point out?

Separately and this is where I’d really appreciate your thoughts my rejection raised some troubling issues I haven’t seen mentioned elsewhere:

• My peer-reviewed academic publication in the Journal of Advertising & Public Relations (Vol. 5, Issue 1, 2025), with over 1,100 downloads, was dismissed because it isn’t in a “leading tech journal” (despite being directly aligned with my field: digital advertising).

A full fintech product I helped build with 350+ users onboarded and $175K+ MRR, was referred to simply as a “PPL campaign,” which completely overlooks the product architecture, qualification engine, lifecycle automation, and recurring revenue model I documented.

Innovation in JourneyDoctors, my healthcare platform, was reduced to “just a dashboard,” with no acknowledgement of the full-stack build, role-based logic, or self-taught technical journey.

Despite attaching reference letters via DocuSign, GitHub commits, performance screenshots from Google Ads, and validation from company officers, the evidence was described as “mostly self-authored.”

My full-time employment and salary via Deel was interpreted as contractor status, despite including contracts, payslips, and payment dashboard evidence.

I know I’m not the only one navigating this process — but it’s disheartening when technical work, validated impact, and cross-industry contributions are framed this narrowly.

Has anyone else faced this kind of disconnect? And again, for the appeal form: Is it acceptable to attach a full PDF version of the appeal if it doesn’t fit in the text boxes provided?

Appreciate any advice from those who’ve been through it

@Akash_Joshi @Francisca_Chiedu @May @mahesh3110 thank you.

[Isabella]

Hi everyone,

I’ll need all the help I can get here please, thank you.

[pahuja]

Hi @Isabella It’s very hard to give fair feedback on any appeal without seeing the application content quality itself as rejection feedback and appeals are directly based on it.

However if as per what you state it seems like the assessor has overlooked some evidences and formed conclusions that seem inaccurate if those snippets were considered. I have seen and helped people turnaround their cases in appeals esp if there is an oversight issue and you have every information to prove otherwise in your application. You need to point the assessor to exact pieces of information missed by them and how they prove the criteria. For the healthcare platform, bring light to the scale and impact of the platform beyond a dashboard. You need to reposition the fintech product and reiterate how it’s a product and not a campaign. If you used any reference letters pointing to this evidence, use relevant snippets to direct from there. The journal maybe in your field however you also need to establish the scale and stature of the journal in tech and how it’s a leading tech journal. Again use stats and scale of the journal to prove this.

You should fill the form first and if needed attach a pdf. Referencing to pdf in the form is not recommended.

[Isabella]

Thanks for your feedback, here’s my application - Review Request: PPC Advertising Strategist (Exceptional Talent)

I am not exactly clear on your response about attaching the pdf, the reviewer had 5 feedback, the form has 4 boxes, how do i appeal my application with limited chances of explanation?

[pahuja]

You can club two small ones into one if possible. Otherwise use the 4 and write the spillover of 5th in the pdf.

Had already given similar feedback as the rejection feedback on your outline. It’s hard to comment fairly without reviewing the actual application content and quality. However, if you disagree with the assessors feedback and your application consists of all elements highlighted then you should form a strong appeal. Good luck!

[Isabella]

Thanks @pahuja, i believe these were my responses to your feedback, i’ll attach the spillover in the pdf, thank you.

Optional Criteria 1 (Innovation)

For JourneyDoctors, I built a healthcare platform that innovates by solving three core problems in healthcare access:

1. My role-based dashboard system eliminates gatekeeping by giving patients direct access to providers’ availability, removing the traditional administrative bottlenecks.
2. I designed a unified database model with multi-role logic instead of duplicating models - this architectural decision makes the platform more scalable and efficient.
3. The booking logic reflects real-life conditions (providers set their own schedule, patients can’t double-book) while being optimized for privacy and speed.

What makes this particularly innovative is that I’m not a software engineer by training - I taught myself how to code to build this platform from scratch. Rather than spending over $100,000 to hire developers, I built it myself using a lean approach. This is evidenced in the GitHub repository screenshots I provided showing my commit history across multiple repositories (frontend, API, and waitlist), the video evidence of my development environment and also video evidence of the product itself, the wireframes I designed showing the role-specific UI, and the platform’s growth to 100+ users organically without paid campaigns.

Optional Criteria 3 (Significant Contribution)

For the Booked product, I no longer work at the company so my evidence is somewhat limited, but the screenshot from my former Chief Content Officer’s reference letter “i also attached the reference as a Gdrive link” directly attributes the creation of this product to me. The letter specifically states I led “the creation of our ‘Booked’ pay-per-lead product by mapping the customer journey, developing customer profiles, and establishing quality checks.”

The LucidChart diagrams I’ve included show my frameworks for the product architecture and lead qualification engine that I personally designed. These diagrams demonstrate my strategic thinking in developing a product that generated $175,000+ in monthly recurring revenue and was adopted by 350+ financial advisors.

Regarding the Lifecycle Advertising Engine, I understand more metrics would strengthen this evidence. Unfortunately, as I no longer work there, I don’t have access to additional performance data. The architecture diagram I provided shows my strategic approach to designing the full-funnel growth engine, including awareness, evaluation, conversion, and post-sale journey stages. This system powered the product’s commercial success, but I acknowledge the limitations in quantifying the direct impact without additional metrics.

Mandatory Criteria (Sector Impact and Leadership)

My evidence demonstrates sector impact through benchmarking against industry standards:

For the PPC Department Buildout, I explicitly note that my work in legal PPC was “a benchmark few in my field can claim” due to the exceptional efficiency achieved in “one of the most expensive and competitive verticals, with high CPCs, intense market saturation, and long sales cycles.” The Google Ads account screenshots I provided show the actual performance metrics I achieved, with visual evidence of the 504,000 clicks, 7.32 million impressions, and $6.65 average CPC from January to April 2025 alone.

For the Product, I achieved a 14.36% conversion rate, which I note is “nearly 3x the industry average for legal verticals.” This is an objective comparison showing my leadership in performance. The screenshots from the Google Ads account visually confirm these achievements with 27,164 total conversions and the $35.27 average cost per conversion.

For Mass Tort Campaigns, I demonstrated the ability to navigate extremely challenging targeting requirements like the Camp Lejeune water contamination campaign, which required identifying individuals based on “where they lived decades ago” from 1953-1987, a unique challenge in digital advertising that I successfully overcame. The campaign screenshots I included verify the performance metrics of 250,000+ clicks, 800,000+ impressions, and the competitive CPCs between $0.44 and $0.99. I also added evidences of bonuses for these campaigns, one was $5k and the other $2k for exceptional performance.

While I don’t have testimonials or awards from legal clients (as my work was for a company, not individual law firms), the performance metrics themselves demonstrate leadership in the digital marketing space, particularly for legal verticals where I consistently outperformed industry benchmarks.

[Akash_Joshi]

I understand you’re considering an appeal. However, given the feedback, a reapplication might be a more effective path. The appeal process doesn’t allow for new evidence, and many of the points raised by the assessor seem to require fresh or differently presented documentation.

The assessors noted challenges with your evidence, mentioning it was “mostly self-authored” and lacked external third-party validation. They also pointed out issues with formatting, like screenshots exceeding page limits. Addressing these concerns thoroughly would mean providing new types of corroborating evidence and reformatting existing documents, which is best done in a new application.

The comments on your sustained recognition, the impact of your publication, your employment status, and the innovation in JourneyDoctors or your contributions via OC3 all suggest a need to provide stronger, clearer, and often third-party verifiable proof. For instance, demonstrating that your publication or work has shaped the field, clarifying your full-time employment, or providing more compelling evidence of innovation and significant contributions will likely involve new documents or data. A new application gives you the opportunity to gather and present this additional information effectively.

[Isabella]

Thanks for your feedback,

I won’t be submitting new evidence, they assessor completely dismissed my evidence as self authored, github commits, recommendation letters {said it had copied in it even though it was from docusign}, platform generated data {google ads}, assessor said i was a contractor because i got paid from deel, even though i attached employment letter, for OC3, i attached screenshot of a reference letter to back up my claims the assessor completely ignored that.

I am not sure how multiple scteenshots in a page exceeds page limit if it’s still within 3 pages, i mentioned the impact of my publication and how it was assessed, everything was completely overlooked. The external links were supplementary verification but all needed evidences were in the application, the assessor did a lot of mischaracterization, how do you not know how a docusign trail looks like, or a google ads platform, or lucidchart detailing my architecture diagrams?