Exceptional Promise (Product Designer) Rejected. Please Review My Appeal

Stage 1
1

I applied for the Exceptional Promise route as a Product Designer. I submitted 10 pieces of evidence, which I believed touched on every point to get endorsed, but unfortunately, I got rejected, and the reasons for my rejection were weird and felt like the assessor didn’t follow the Tech Nation guidelines while going through my evidence.

I have put together my appeal, and I am asking for your help in reviewing it before I go ahead to submit. For the sake of privacy, I will be retracting names of products, company, and events

@Francisca_Chiedu @pahuja @Akash_Joshi @Carthy

Rejection Reason 1 - For MC1, the [product] design example does not demonstrate how the applicant has individually achieved notable industry recognition on a national or international level. Additionally, this example relies on unverified evidence, including unverified self-authored text, screenshots that do not name or connect to the applicant and a letter which is not sufficiently backed up with third-party objective evidence.

My Appeal - According to Tech Nation’s guidelines, one of the requirements for Mandatory Criteria is “You led the growth of a product-led digital technology company, product or team inside a digital technology company, as evidenced by reference letter(s) from leading industry expert(s) describing your work, or as evidenced by news clippings, lines of code from public repos or similar evidence”. I provided this evidence with everything that was required per the guideline.

MC_1: Leading the Growth of a Product Inside a Digital Technology Company: The assessor incorrectly stated that my evidence was unverified, including self-authored texts and screenshots, which were not backed up with third-party evidence. This is inaccurate. My leadership on the [product] was directly validated by senior executives at [Tech company], including [name], the Divisional Head of Engineering, and [name], the Chief Innovation Officer, both of whom acknowledged that I discovered [product] on my own and single-handedly spearheaded the growth and scaled the product into what we have today. As the Product Designer, I provided screenshots of my designs from my Figma account with the initial of my name “E” shown at the top right of the image, as well as screenshot of metrics from Microsoft Clarity, showing the product’s traction: over 37,000 unique visitors, 1,500+ home purchases, over £478 million in processed transactions, and over £1.9 billion in generated revenue. These metrics were also supported by validation from senior leadership in both their reference and recommendation letters included in my application, verifying the authenticity and impact of my claims. Additionally, I included a link to a third-party validation from BusinessDay, a nationally and internationally recognized media outlet, which published a feature highlighting the positive economic impact of [product] since its launch.

Given these clarifications, I respectfully request reconsideration of my endorsement application

Rejection Reason 2 - The Guardian and Vanguard media outlets do not constitute notable digital technology industry recognition on a national or international level. The “10 Free Website Hero Sections” shows a very modest download count of only 350 vs. a much higher level than one would expect of one of the world’s most promising talents. Additionally, this project lacks notable sector-advancing content. Compensation alone is insufficient to meet this criteria. MC is not met.

My Appeal - Tech Nation’s guidelines require at least two unique pieces of evidence in the mandatory criteria demonstrating recognition as having potential to be a leading talent. I have provided four substantial pieces of evidence (including [product] in column 2.1 above), exceeding this requirement.

MC_2: Published Articles In Major Media: I included evidence showing that two of my works were published in two different major media outlets.

a) I provided evidence that the bus tracker product I designed and developed was spotlighted in the “Tech of the Week” segment on Vanguard’s media website, a 40-year-old nationally and internationally recognized media outlet with over 12 million monthly readers globally. This was supported by metrics from Similar Web which I provided. The article titled “Vision for Smarter Transportation: Patrick Ogbonna’s Game-Changing Bus Tracking Solution” emphasized how my innovation would help solve major transportation challenges affecting over 13 million people living in Lagos.

b) I also provided proof of an Interview published by TheGuardian Newspaper, a media outlet with over 1.5 million monthly readers, where I was invited to share insights as the lead behind the growth of [product] (as also detailed in MC_1). The interview highlighted my career journey and further affirmed my recognition as an industry leader and an inspiration to others.

MC_3: Contributor to Open-Source Project: The assessor incorrectly stated that this open-source project lacks notable sector-advancing content. As a Designer, before uploading a project to the Figma community, your project needs to go through a rigorous review process required for publishing on Figma. This process can take up to 24 - 72hours. The approval of my project by Figma signifies that it meets a standard of usefulness and relevance to the wider design community. I strongly disagree with the claim that it is not sector-advancing. Moreover, this project will continue to add value to designers around the world and will remain accessible as a long-term resource even beyond my active involvement in the field

MC_4: Career Progression with High Salary: I was not just given compensation and a salary increase; I was financially rewarded for the part I played in building products that helped the company generate over £6.3 billion in revenue.

Rejection Reason 3 - The [name] University example lacks sector-advancing content. It is not clearly demonstrated how either programme required notable mentee selection criteria and how the content was indeed sector advancing. It is unclear if this activity was outside a commercial agreement, as even nonprofits utilise funding to hire assistance when needed. The [community] example lacks notable industry recognition. OC2 is not met

My Appeal - Tech Nation guidelines require two pieces of evidence per optional criterion; I provided three per criterion, exceeding expectations. I respectfully request reconsideration.

1: Speaking Engagements: I respectfully disagree with the assessor’s claim that “The [name] University example lacks sector-advancing content”. [name] University is ranked among the top 5 Tech Universities in the country, and being invited to speak at its conference is a significant recognition of professional expertise. The event was aimed at enriching final year students who were about to graduate and go into the world of tech with digital entrepreneurship skills, and I was invited to deliver a session on “Design Thinking and Human-Centered Design,” aimed at shaping how future engineers and technologists approach problem-solving in the real world. I provided evidence of my talk at the conference, showing a picture of me speaking on the main stage, a screenshot of the programme of events being shown on the big screen listing my name and topic, and a letter of reference from the conference organizers confirming my participation. I also provided an image of the attendees, over 200 attendees (exceeding Tech Nation’s requirement of at least 100 attendees).

2: Mentorship Programmes: The assessor mentions that the mentorship programmes were not sector advancing with clear mentee selection criteria. However, I respectfully disagree with this interpretation, as I have provided comprehensive evidence of structured mentoring activities (both physical and online) in my application through two distinct programs, [name of programs], all volunteer tech community roles (as indicated in my CV), each with clear timelines, selection criteria, and structure. My impact was supported by a reference letter, which I provided in my application.

3: Creating a Design Community: I provided evidence of starting a design community in 2023, outside my normal day-to-day work activities. I showed how I consistently go above and beyond to make sure young adults transitioning into tech have a safe, friendly environment in which they can freely discuss their opinions, receive genuine support, rely on one another, and grow together both personally and professionally. I included evidence of me starting a design book club, sharing job opportunities with the group, creating free design assets they can use on their projects, and sharing content on social media to help them stay on top of design trends worldwide.

I have consistently demonstrated impact by empowering newbies in tech, mentoring the next generation of product designers, and sharing knowledge through speaking engagements with the wider tech community. These efforts reflect the very essence of advancing the sector, and I trust my contributions will be duly recognized upon review.

Rejction Reason 4 - For OC3, the [product] 10K download count is still quite modest, rather than showing exceptional results. Additionally, the individual impact of the applicant is not separated out from the team-wide effort and the results for this example and for [tech company] example. The internal [tech company] certificate does not explain their individual impact either. The internal hackathon lacks notable and tangible resulting impact on a product-led digital company as well. OC3 is not met.

My Appeal - 1: Key Designer at [product]: I disagree with the assessor saying that [product]’ 10,000+ downloads is “quite modest”. I provided evidence of working pro bono as the sole designer at [product], an NGO using digital technology to address financial access challenges in rural Nigeria. Without a user-centered and functional design which I provided in my application (Figma designs), the engineering team would not have had a framework to build on, meaning the product could not have launched, and the 10,000+ downloads on the Google Play Store would not exist. Without me, [product] would still be “an idea.” I transformed it into a fully operational product and I strongly disagree with the suggestion that my individual impact cannot be separated from the team-wide effort. The Co-Founder outlined my contributions and impact I had on the product’s success in the reference letter I included in my application. The impact of [product] on the community was highlighted in an article published by ThisDay newspaper, which I included as supporting evidence.

2. Open-Source Contributor at [tech company]: The assessor again stated that my individual impact could not be separated from the team-wide effort. I respectfully disagree with this assessment. On this project, I provided clear evidence that I independently identified issues with the old design system (providing screenshots of the old design system version history to point out how old it was), and how I went ahead to create a concise and well-structured design system, providing screenshots of the designs on my Figma account showing the version history with only my name clearly highlighted in green rectangle. I also pointed out in my evidence that the new design system I created was incorporated into over 10 products at [tech company], generating a sum of over £6.3 billion in revenue. This significant impact was acknowledged by [name], the Divisional Head of Design [tech company], in his reference letter, and reaffirmed by [name], the Chief Innovation Officer [tech company], in recommendation letter.

3. Significant Impact [tech company]: The internal awards given to me by [tech company] speaks to the contribution of my impact in the company. Firstly, I was awarded the award for my “significant design contributions” to products that have helped the company generate over £6.3 billion in revenue. Secondly, I was recognized me as a “Special Outlier” at the company because I gave my bus tracker innovation (which I mentioned in MC_2 Vanguard media publication) to the company and helped them secure a major partnership deal with [name of another tech company] - a leading transportation startup in the digital technology field with annual revenues exceeding £26 million. I also provided the letter of commendation I received from the CEO [tech company], [name]

In light of this compelling evidence, I respectfully request reconsideration of my application, as I meet Tech Nation’s criteria.
.
.
.
.
.
Tell me what you think and if I’m missing something.

Thank you

2

Please help review. Thank you :pray: @Akash_Joshi @pahuja @Francisca_Chiedu @Carthy

3

Hi Patrick,

Sorry to hear about the rejection, but it’s great that you are considering an appeal - This allows Tech Nation to review your application.

It’s worth noting that providing tailored advice can be challenging without a clear understanding of how your application was structured - including your personal statement, recommendation letters, and supporting evidence. That said, I hope the following general feedback would help.

Regarding your appeal, due to space constraints, it’s best not to quote the Tech Nation guidelines directly, Instead, you might say something like:

“According to the TN’s guideline MC(1)(a)”

For your first appeal, note that Tech Nation did not state you failed to provide evidence - rather, they raised concerns about the strength or relevance of what was submitted. It’s more effective to directly address these concerns rather than reiterating statements such as:

“I have provided four substantial pieces of evidence (including [product] in column 2.1 above), exceeding this requirement.”

On the subject of publications, articles in daily papers or blogs are generally no longer considered strong evidence. From experience, even my own article published in a reputable platform with lots of views and comments was not accepted.

Finally, regarding your language: rather than saying “I disagree with the assessor,” it may be more polite to say something like:

“I believe there may have been an oversight,”
or
“My evidence appears not to have been acknowledged, despite aligning with TN’s guideline…”

I hope this helps as you put together your appeal.

1 Like
4

Thanks for this, I will make the corrections

5

Your appeal shows strong knowledge of the guidelines but needs to focus on reframing existing evidence rather than defending it. Since you can’t submit new documents, your strategy should be highlighting overlooked aspects of what you already provided and addressing the assessors’ specific concerns about verification and individual impact.

The key issue isn’t that your evidence was insufficient - it’s that the assessors couldn’t clearly see your individual contributions separated from team efforts. Restructure your appeal to explicitly point out where in your existing documents the individual impact is demonstrated. For example, instead of arguing about download numbers being significant, explain exactly where in your reference letters the co-founder confirms your sole design responsibility and how the Figma screenshots with your name prove individual ownership. The assessors missed these connection points between different pieces of evidence.

Remove all the lengthy guideline quotations and confrontational language like “I disagree with the assessor.” Instead, use that space to create a clear evidence map that shows how your existing documents collectively prove each criterion. I’ve seen successful appeals that simply reorganized the same evidence into a more compelling narrative. Focus on phrases like “my existing evidence demonstrates” and “as outlined in the reference letter on page X” to guide assessors to the specific validation they missed in your original submission.

1 Like
6

Thank you soo much for this. I love this angle & I will rework my appeal to follow this format. Once I’m done, I’ll drop it here for you to review again.

Thanks @Akash_Joshi

1 Like
7

Hi @Akash_Joshi @Raphael

I took your feedback and reworked the appeal. Please go through it and tell me what you think

Rejection Reason 1 - For MC1, the [product] design example does not demonstrate how the applicant has individually achieved notable industry recognition on a national or international level. Additionally, this example relies on unverified evidence, including unverified self-authored text, screenshots that do not name or connect to the applicant and a letter which is not sufficiently backed up with third-party objective evidence.

My Appeal - MC_1: Leading the Growth of a Product Inside a Digital Technology Company: I believe there may have been an oversight with the assessment that the [product] example does not demonstrate notable industry recognition or that the evidence provided was unverified.

The [product] was not a team-led effort I participated in, it was a dormant product I personally discovered and revived. I took full initiative to lead the end-to-end product development, including assembling a team, leading design efforts, and launching the product (Evidence of this can be found in page 1, paragraphs 1 and 2. This was also backed with a reference letter I attached on page 3, paragraph 2). I alone designed user interfaces for tenants, landlords, and administrators, with screenshots from my Figma account with the initial of my name “E” shown at the top right of the image (attached in pages 1 and 2, backed up by the reference letter on page 3, paragraph 3) confirming my sole effort in this product

I supported my claims with multiple forms of credible and traceable evidence, including;

  • A reference letter from Head of Engineering, directly confirming my leadership and impact on the [product] (letter can be found on page 3)
  • A certificate of completion from DocuSign confirming the authenticity and authorship of that reference letter, including timestamps, digital signatures, and traceable IP addresses (can be found on page 5)
  • Quantitative metrics from Microsoft Clarity evidencing real-world product usage: over 37,000 unique visitors (screenshot attached in page 2), 1,500+ home purchases, over (£478 million) in processed transactions, and over £1.9 billion in generated revenue (metrics were supported by reference letter on page 3, paragraph 4, and reaffirmed by a senior executive on my recommendation letter, page 1, paragraph 3)

The article published by BusinessDay, one of most respected media outlets, speaks to the national-level recognition the product has received (link to this publication was attached in page 2, paragraph 2).

The evidence provided is independently verifiable and clearly supports the originality, scale, and significance of my contribution at a product-led digital technology company.

Rejection Reason 2 - The Guardian and Vanguard media outlets do not constitute notable digital technology industry recognition on a national or international level. The “10 Free Website Hero Sections” shows a very modest download count of only 350 vs. a much higher level than one would expect of one of the world’s most promising talents. Additionally, this project lacks notable sector-advancing content. Compensation alone is insufficient to meet this criteria. MC is not met.

My Appeal - MC_2: Published Articles In Major Media: In this section, I submitted two media publications, Vanguard and TheGuardian, which are among Nigeria’s most respected and long-standing media publications. As I noted on page 1, paragraph 1 of my evidence, “Vanguard has been in existence for over 40years”. Both publications consistently covers major national and international events, including reports on developments in science, technology, and innovation. This is supported by my evidence in page 1, paragraph 1 where I mentioned, “At a tech event in Lagos, Nigeria, where the media company was present…”, and further reinforced in paragraph 4 of the actual publication, “At a recent local tech event in Lagos, where this writer had the opportunity to meet many tech enthusiasts…”
Both publications have dedicated technology and innovation sections and regularly feature emerging digital products and tech solutions. As I highlighted in page 1, paragraph 1, Vanguard approached me with a request to feature my work in their “Tech of the Week” segment. Similarly, in page 3, the attached screenshot of TheGuardian publication clearly shows a “Tech” column in the top navigation bar, indicating a dedicated space for digital innovation-related content.
These platforms also have significant reach: Vanguard has over 12 million unique monthly readers, while The Guardian reaches more than 1.5 million. This is supported by the SimilarWeb screenshots I provided on pages 2 and 3, which also show a strong national and diaspora readership base.

Given their reputation, subject matter focus, and wide reach within Nigeria’s context as leading tech hubs in Africa, both TheGuardian and Vanguard align with Tech Nation’s definition of notable digital technology media outlets, and their coverage of my work reflects meaningful industry recognition.

MC_3: Contributor to Open-Source Project: As outlined in page 1, paragraph 1, this project has been live in less than 6months and has seen good number of downloads in that short period. This project will continue to add value to designers around the world and will remain accessible even beyond my active involvement in the field (click link in page 1, paragraph 1 to view numbers of downloads right now). In pages 2 and 3, I attached screenshot of emails and comments from the figma community, where users acknowledged how this project improved their workflow. These responses demonstrate that the project is not only actively used but also delivers notable sector-advancing value to the design community.

Rejection Reason 3 - The [name] University example lacks sector-advancing content. It is not clearly demonstrated how either programme required notable mentee selection criteria and how the content was indeed sector advancing. It is unclear if this activity was outside a commercial agreement, as even nonprofits utilise funding to hire assistance when needed. The [community] example lacks notable industry recognition. OC2 is not met

My Appeal - 1: Speaking Engagements: On pages 2 and 3 of my evidence, I showed that:

  • The talk was delivered to over 200 people in attendance, exceeding Tech Nation’s guideline of at least 100 attendees.
  • My topic, Design Thinking and Human-Centered Design, is core to product design in digital technology. Sharing practical, real-world methods directly supports the skill development of future tech enthusiasts, clearly aligning with the sector-advancing criteria.
  • I also provided an image and a video snippet of me on the main stage together, the official programme of events showing my session highlighted, and a letter of reference from the University explaining why I was chosen, confirming the invitation was based on my expertise and impact.

In summary, the University’s profile, the nature of the topic, the number of attendees, and the documented evidence together demonstrate that this speaking engagement is sector-advancing and well within Tech Nation’s guidelines.

2: Mentorship Programmes: The assessor mentions that the mentorship programmes were not sector advancing with clear mentee selection criteria. However, as my existing evidence demonstrates, I have provided comprehensive pictorial evidence of structured mentoring activities with screenshots of both my physical and online involvements in pages 1 and 2 of my application through two distinct programs, namely [name of program], all volunteer tech community roles (as indicated in my CV), each with clear timelines, and selection criteria listed on their website (links to their website and LinkedIn pages were provided). My impact was supported by a reference letter, which I provided on page 3 of my application.

3: Creating a Design Community: In my evidence:

  • As shown with a screenshot in page 1, the DesignersWho community has 200+ members worldwide, indicating organic traction and cross-border appeal.
  • I created LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube, and a dedicated website to share design content and foster engagement beyond a single platform. I provided screenshots of these on pages 1 and 2.
  • I provided evidence on pages 2 and 3 of the creation of a UI/UX library and job board, demonstrating utility and value to members, aligning with Tech Nation’s emphasis on contributions that advance the industry.

This evidence provided meets Tech Nation’s guidelines for “contributions beyond day-to-day work” with clear and verifiable outcomes.

I have consistently demonstrated impact by empowering newbies in tech, mentoring the next generation of product designers, and sharing knowledge through speaking engagements with the wider tech community. These efforts reflect the very essence of advancing the sector, and I trust that, upon review, my contributions will be acknowledged accordingly.

Rejction Reason 4 - For OC3, the [product] 10K download count is still quite modest, rather than showing exceptional results. Additionally, the individual impact of the applicant is not separated out from the team-wide effort and the results for this example and for [tech company] example. The internal [tech company] certificate does not explain their individual impact either. The internal hackathon lacks notable and tangible resulting impact on a product-led digital company as well. OC3 is not met.

My Appeal - 1: Key Designer at [startup]: I believe there may have been an oversight in the assessment describing the 10,000+ downloads of [product] as “modest”. In page 1, paragraph 1 of my evidence, I explained how [product] directly addresses financial access challenges in rural region. This was further supported by the Co-Founder’s statement in the reference letter (page 3, paragraph 3): “Our mission at [startup] is to bridge the gap between digital and physical cash in rural and semi-urban communities.” Additionally, in paragraph 4 of the same letter, the Co-Founder confirmed that [startup] had been adopted in 3 out of the 5 regions. This demonstrates that the 10,000+ downloads came predominantly from underdeveloped regions, making this achievement particularly significant rather than modest.
Moreover, in page 3, paragraphs 4 and 5, the Co-Founder highlighted my individual contributions to the product’s success. On page 1, paragraph 1, I noted that my role was entirely unpaid and that I was the sole designer on the team. I also included a screenshot from my Figma account showing [product] design work and stakeholder comments requesting design revisions.
This shows that without my designs, the engineering team would not have had a framework to build on, meaning the product could not have launched, and the 10,000+ downloads on the Google Playstore would not exist.

  1. Open-Source Contributor at digital company: On page 1 of my application, I provided clear evidence that I independently identified issues with the old design system (providing screenshots of the old design system version history to point out how old it was). This initiative was supported by the reference letter from Head of Design (page 3, paragraph 2). Both my written evidence and the reference letter explained how I then created a more concise and well-structured design system, supported by screenshots from my Figma account on page 2, where the version history clearly shows only my name highlighted in a green rectangle. This individual contribution was further confirmed in the reference letter on page 3, paragraph 3. Regarding measurable impact, I explained in page 2, paragraph 2 that the new design system was integrated into over 10 products, collectively generating £6.3 billion in revenue. This was also reinforced by head of design in the reference letter on page 3, paragraph 4, where he highlighted how my work delivered significant business outcomes for the company.

  2. Significant Impact at product-led company: As detailed on page 1, paragraph 1, I received the Technovator award in recognition of my design contributions, which helped company generate over £6.3 billion in revenue. Although this award was presented during the company’s internal hackathon event, I was not part of any team competing. The link provided in page 1, paragraph 1 leads to the company’s official LinkedIn post, where slides 2, 3, and 6 clearly show the hackathon winners separately, confirming I was recognised independently. I also included photos from the award presentation on page 1.
    Additionally, on page 2, I explained how my innovation contributed to company securing a major partnership with a transportation startup generating annual revenues of over £26 million which in turn made the company to recognize me as a Special Outlier in the award category. On page 3, I attached the letter of commendation I received from the Group Managing Director/CEO of company, further acknowledging my individual impact.

In light of this compelling evidence, I respectfully request reconsideration of my application, as I meet Tech Nation’s criteria.

8

@Patrick_Ogbonna Apologies for the delayed response.

Please focus more directly on the core issue Tech Nation raised. For example, rejection 1, the concern is not whether you led the product - it is that your evidence does not demonstrate that the industry recognizes you individually for that work.

At the moment, your appeal still leans heavily on proving that you did the work. But that is not what is being questioned. The issue is external recognition, so your response should address that immediately and clearly.

Also, I recommend using the structured appeal form for your response. Some of your points are currently too long and may need to be cut down to fit. Try to make your key points concise and within the provided space.

If you absolutely must include an additional sheet, be sure that your main form already makes a compelling case- that way the reviewer is more likely to continue reading the additional material with interest.

For issue 1, you may want to say something like

According to the Tech Nation guideline, my evidence is meant to show that I led the growth of a product inside a digital technology company. I submitted two signed reference letters from senior executives, the Divisional Head of Engineering and the Chief Innovation Officer, confirming that I discovered, revived, and led the development of the product independently. These letters describe my leadership and direct impact on the product.To prove ownership of the product, I included figma screenshots with my initial “E” at the top right corner, traceable to my account, showing my sole involvement in designing the product interfaces. I also submitted usage metrics from Microsoft Clarity - over x,000 unique visitors, xmillion in processed transactions, and £x billion in generated revenue, which are validated in the reference letters.

Finally, I provided a link to an article published by BusinessDay, a nationally recognized media outlet, and most read business newspaper in my country, which highlighted the economic impact of the product. This gives third party, independent recognition of the product and its significance.

Taken together, these evidences demonstrate both my individual contribution and national recognition in line with Tech Nation’s guideline and requirements.

This is just for information purposes, as I am not an immigration lawyer. My opinion and contribution are based on my personal experience and those I have advised in the past.

All the best

1 Like