[Exceptional Talent] Application Rejected, help/feedback requested for appeal

Stage 1
1

Hi everyone,
I am a Software Engineer currently living in London and working in Meta for 3 years. I have 10 years of experience in total. I have 2 international patents and one international conference paper. I also got 4 reference letter 2 managers from Meta and 1 manager and 1 team lead from my previous company (Siemens)
I am suprised that I didn’t met any of the criteria. Here is the panel feedback, would appreciate some help and would be great if you suggest someone that i can get support. Thank you

What I’ve provided for mandatory criteria:

  1. Worldwide Patent
  2. European Patent
  3. International Publication and Conference Presentation - IEEE EDGE 2019
  4. Company Offer Letter.pdf
  5. P60 End of Year Certificate 2020 to 2021.pdf
  6. P60 End of Year Certificate 2021 to 2022.pdf
  7. Additional Reference Letter.pdf

First Optional Criteria:

  1. Worldwide Patent
  2. European Patent
  3. International Publication and Conference Presentation - IEEE EDGE 2019
  4. Additional Reference Letter.pdf

Second Optional Criteria:

  1. Worldwide Patent
  2. European Patent
  3. International Publication and Conference Presentation - IEEE EDGE 2019
  4. Additional Reference Letter.pdf

Assessment panel feedback:
The applicant has applied for the Exceptional Talent visa and selected Optional Criteria 2 and 3.
There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the applicant is recognised as leading and exceptional
talent within the digital technology sector. Whilst the evidence is supportive this is largely related to
character or in support of the role recruited to do. The references are from a close group of former /
current colleagues rather than a broader base of industry leaders which is typical of exceptional talent
and sought after experts. Whilst the applicant is a skilled employee, valued colleague and team
member this is insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability or expertise to be leading talent at the
forefront of the sector. There are insufficient examples of media recognition, high profile speaking
engagements, editorial engagements or other forms of recognisable contributions that are celebrated in
their own right of which the candidate is a validated author. Taking all evidence into consideration the
applicant has not met the Mandatory Criteria.
OC2 - the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate work beyond the applicant’s
occupation that contributes to the advancement of the field. The applicant has provided notable
examples however these directly relate to the applicants field of work and occupation i.e. patents were
submitted by Siemens. The IEEE EDGE 2019 conference was also in the capacity of the applicants
occupation and employer. The applicant has not met the criteria for OC2.
OC3 - the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate significant contribution
technically, commercially or entrepreneurial contribution to the field as a founder or employee of a
product led digital technology company. The evidence provided does not provide clarity of impact,
results and outcomes as a direct result of the applicants work. The applicant has not met the criteria for
OC3.
In summary there is insufficient evidence at this stage for the Exceptional Talent visa to be endorsed.

2

It appears that you overlooked several important elements outlined in the guidelines. You should have known from the guideline that you can’t use the same evidence for OC2 and OC3 as they are opposites: you can’t have a piece of evidence that shows the work you did during employment also being used for work outside occupation.

For example, a patent submitted by your company clearly cannot fit OC2.

1 Like
3

You may need to turn in a fresh application as you have not provided sufficient evidence to meet the criteria. First your recommenders are mostly your colleagues, it appears they didn’t put the level of details in the guideline. The letters should state your achievements, why you are exceptional and how you will contribute to the UK digital economy. You provided patent, is this your work, was there detailed explanation on how you were recognised? I believe your evidence should have passed for OC1 not OC2. As for OC3 you didn’t show your impact.

Lastly, avoid using people from same organisation.

2 Likes
4

Thanks for the comment. However, i am confused on this, I believe for patents or papers people either work on academic or in a company and create these. Therefore the university or company name will be on the paper or patent. The patent belongs to company but I did the work? I am making sense? Same is valid for paper, i don’t think there are many people with paper or patents they created by themselves right? Not judging you just trying to understand more

5

OC2 is for work done outside immediate occupation but your patent was created during your employment and filed by your company so it contradicts the criteria