The candidate was applying for a Global Talent Visa (GTV) application via the Exceptional Promise (EP) route. The assessor has thoroughly examined all provided evidence, though not every piece may be explicitly addressed in this feedback. Upon comprehensive analysis, the assessor’s judgment regarding the applicant’s case is that the candidate has not been endorsed.
The candidate’s CV notes their career began in 2018, and as such, we do not believe they are early in their career to qualify for the EP route. However, as we do not believe they pass the criteria for ET either, we have provided feedback against their chosen route for completeness.
Mandatory reference letters speak to a capable employee, and support for the candidate’s
work, but do not speak to contributions beyond those we would expect in the candidate’s roles or
point to field recognition beyond employment, such as being invited to speak at events, being
published in leading technology publications or other examples of strong recognition.
Regarding Mandatory Criteria, it should be noted that slack screenshots and company linkedin posts are not the level of strong objective evidence of contributions or impact we require. Evidence of code and the additional support letter are noted, but are what we would expect in the candidate’s roles, showing a capable employee, but not proving they are one of the world’s most promising digital technology talents. There is no objective evidence of field recognition of the candidate beyond employment, which is also a key requirement of MC. Overall, MC is not met.
With respect to Optional Criteria 1 and OC3, we do not have strong objective evidence of
contributions or impact at the level required for either criterion. Internal Slack screenshots and
internal briefing documents are again not strong evidence. Contributions proven through code
appear in line with what we would expect of the candidate’s roles, and we have no objective
evidence of specific innovations they played a critical role in bringing to market, nor of a significant impact on the company or field of work beyond that expected in their roles. Additional support letters, while complimentary of the candidate’s work, suggest a capable employee, but not the level of contribution we typically see in successful EP candidates, and moreover, we cannot rely on support letters without strong accompanying objective evidence.
As the candidate has not met any criteria, they have not been endorsed.