Exceptional Promise rejection

Stage 1
1

Hello,
I applied to Exceptional Promise on February 5th and got rejection on 11th.

I am surprised as they did not accept any of the evidence as sufficient.

Could you help me reviewing my case, is there any change they might change their decision if I appeal?

For mandatory criteria I attached my bank statement for 2024 and a contribution to a product-led company as Android Enginner, the product-led company launched a Kickstarted campaign and we raised $150k.
But in the rejection feedback they told me

Running a kickstarter campaign isn’t evidence of significant contributions to the tech field.

However, I also attached a GitHub contribution (as OC3) for that product-led company.

For OC3 I attached contribution to my own mobile development agency as Co-Founder and CTO, described projects I worked on, clients feedbacks, and attached companies open-source projects from GitHub (as OC2). I took active part of the development as mobile software engineer in my company.
The rejection feedback:

{CompanyName} was very much a part of their main occupation and thus not relevant
towards this criteria. As noted above, their open source contributions at Github aren’t compelling, and neither are their listed publications. We are unable to see any third party corroboration of their claims to have advanced the field through work outside their main occupation.

For OC3 I also attached my contribution to a service-led company for 4 years.
But in the feedback:

Much of their work experience appears to be short-term stints for around 12 months, including their current 2 jobs and possibly a third one that they left in January earlier in 2025.

For OC2 I attached my GitHub profile with many open-source projects and I even have some projects from 2020-2021.
The rejection feedback:

Github profile is quite underwhelming and with only modest levels of activity and impact in 2024/23, and much below the standards we expect from awardees of this visa.

For OC2 I also attached my publications in Medium, 3 publications were published by ProAndroidDev.
The feedback:

There are no keynotes at leading global tech events or publications in leading journals where they have shaped the direction of their field. The listed publications are more like “how to” articles. There is hardly any public profile or recognition of any of their work or contributions to the field or to any local tech ecosystem. Self-authored evidence of their own startup and other companies worked for isn’t compelling.

3 letters of recomendation were from:

  1. CTO of UK’s company (worked in past, going to work again soon)
  2. CTO and Co-Founder of an European technical startup
  3. Engineering Manager from my previous company (worked 4 years there)

They wrote these letters by themself, but since they didn’t have Docusign account, I uploaded it to my account and sent to them for the signature.
The feedback:

While the three mandatory recommendation letters are complimentary of the applicant we are unable to see anything exceptional or extraordinary described in these letters. All letters are digitally signed but the signature trail clearly shows that each was originated by the applicant and sent to the recommender for their signature. We have serious questions about the authenticity of the letters and the role the applicant might have had in their drafting.

I found in the forum that it should be okay if I upload the documents by myself and ask people who whore the docs to sign it. But it looks like the sender must sign it by themself via Docusign.

Another part of the feedback:

There are multiple challenges with the evidence submitted. It comprises mostly self-authored evidence and letters that are not supported by external evidence, as required under the guidelines. The applicant has also cut and pasted multiple screenshots onto a single page and this also does not meet the submission guidelines. Each screenshot, especially of different articles and subjects, should count as a single page, and thus the submitted evidence exceeds the permissible 3-page per evidence limit. There are numerous external links and assessors aren’t required to access any of them as per the guidelines.

2

Hi @viktor sorry about the outcome!

The feedback is quite clear: largely your application seems to have a lot of self-claims without any backing validation of those claims.

Your MC as stated above is very weak: salary proofs are weak evidences and often just for support. You had two evidences out of which one was salary proof and the other seems like a kickstarter campaign which is not significant enough to demonstrate potential to lead on the industry.

OC3 is about showing success in the company and not industry. Looks like the assessor feedback here is inaccurate and can be appealed.

Articles on medium aren’t counted and if you don’t have good traction on GitHub, it may not be impressive.

The key issues in your application are self-claims without any backing support and doubts on authenticity of LORs.

1 Like
3

Hi Priyanka, thank you for comming back to me.

If I work in a product-led company, by any chance, do you know what else might I use as supporting evidences except for the Kickstarter campaign?
I have already got a letter of recomendation from CTO of that product-led company as part of LORs. But is it possible to attach another LOR from CEO, e.g.? Or the supporting evidence should be something about metrics, sales, and users?

If I apply one more time and use the same LORs, but now I will ask the authors to sign by themself via Docusign, will it be still considered as already-used evidences? Do I need to ask for 3 completelly new LORs?

For articles and GitHub, I suppose I need to spend some time to contribute there. But even if I am going to write more articles in the couple of next months, can I be considered as a sufficient evidence if it’s close to the applying date?

By any chance, do you know how I can support my self-proclaimed evidences? Is it more about getting evidences from other people, and not from me?

4

You can get the same LORs however since there’s also a feedback on LOR you should incorporate that in new application.

I won’t be able to comment on the evidences from your work ex because I don’t know your work in-depth. However everything you demonstrate should exactly be able to meet the criteria’s ask.

In appeal you cannot add any new evidence but you can attempt a new application ensuring you are addressing the feedback on your last application.

1 Like
5

Hi Viktor,

Unfortunately it looks like an appeal is unlikely to work in this case. You also can’t expect them to look at evidence given for an OC towards the MC. It does look like it’s worth you getting a firm to help you apply at this point, in all honesty.

6

Hi, Rishri

Do you know how else I can support my evidences?
I work in a product-led company, we launched a BLE device, closed a Kickstarted campaign.

I am going to work more on my publications and being a mentor, hope including some mentorship certificates might strength my case.

And in case if I am contributing more to my personal GitHub for next months, will it be enough?
Or Tech Nation wants collaboration with other people?

I can’t find what else might be useful to imrove my application.

Thank you for your time.

7

I highly recommend collaborating with other folks or publishing a lot more code. May I also suggest starting your own software solution on the side? In terms of mentorship, you have to be seen as a senior mentor, so I recommend partnering with universities.

I hope that helps!

8

I think you should appeal. I was initially rejected on all criteria but received the endorsement after appealing.

Read the guidelines again and map your evidence according to them in the appeal. You have limited space available in the appeal form, so avoid adding extra pages and aim to address all the points in the feedback within the allowed character limit.