Exceptional Talent Application – Rejected (Proforma attached), Now Appealing

1

Hi everyone, it is sad to share that my application for Exceptional Talent was rejected.

I went through a total of five edits before the rejection and received the final decision last week Wednesday.

  • MC – Rejected
  • OC2 – Rejected
  • OC3 – Accepted

Timeline:

  • Date Applied: 23/07/2025
  • Tech Nation Decision Date: 04/08/2025
  • Application Update Received: 13/08/2025

My Appeal includes:

  • LORs: I appealed the assessor’s comment that my recommendation letters “contained nothing unique.” I believe this is incorrect, and I highlighted the distinctiveness of each recommender and how their letters demonstrate my unique impact and recognition.
  • MC: I appealed the decision on my Mandatory Criteria. The evidence I provided contained strong proof of significant impact, including revenue growth and technical contributions. It seems the assessor overlooked the detailed sections of the file, as the content clearly demonstrates how I meet the MC requirements.
  • OC2: I also appealed OC2. In my appeal, I re-listed the evidence I had submitted and clarified how each piece aligns with the criteria.

My Questions:

  1. Should I also include my LOR appeal response in the appeal form, or is it better to focus only on MC and OC2? In other words, do comments about the LORs affect the final endorsement outcome, even if MC and OC2 are successfully passed?
  2. How does the appeal process work exactly? Will they re-evaluate the whole application from scratch, or do they only review the points I raised in my appeal and calmly reassess the application based on those?
  3. How many times can I appeal after submitting my first appeal?

MY PROFORMA:

The applicant has applied for Exceptional Talent based on Optional Criteria 2 and Optional Criteria 3. The applicant has submitted the three mandatory letters of reference. While the letters summarise the applicant’s work, they do not offer any unique insights.

Most of the evidence for MC consists of analytics dashboards showing product and feature performance at **** and **** but this does not demonstrate wider industry recognition.

Similarly, being well paid in Nigeria may reflect strong performance, but it does not, on its own, indicate leadership or recognition.

Overall, the applicant hasn’t demonstrated significant or sustained recognition in the digital technology sector. There’s no sign of regular speaking engagements at major industry events or conferences in the past five years. The applicant hasn’t won any major prizes or awards and they haven’t been endorsed by industry experts outside of work colleagues. In addition, they haven’t made any significant contributions to the broader digital technology ecosystem.

Optional Criteria 2 requires the applicant to provide proof of recognition for work outside their immediate occupation that has contributed to the advancement of the sector.

The applicant submitted evidence of software development for an open access journal article, but they are not listed as an author, and there is no indication that their contribution has advanced the sector. A webinar on X is similarly unlikely to have sector-level impact. The applicant’s GitHub profile shows minimal public engagement, with very few followers, stars, or forks, and most contributions are to private repositories. While their Stack Overflow answers have been helpful and well-received, the profile does not reflect leadership or exceptional standing, as there is no evidence of sustained high-level contributions, original technical insight, or peer recognition.

The applicant made significant technical and commercial contributions to two product-led digital technology companies, **** and ****. While ZZ is not product-led as defined by Tech Nation, the XX2.0 platform functions as a consumer-facing digital service, and the applicant’s role in redesigning and deploying it adds credible supporting weight. Therefore, the applicant meets OC3.

Based on the above, the applicant has not submitted sufficient or compelling evidence to meet all the criteria and cannot be endorsed for this visa.

Finally, I want to say a heartfelt thank you to everyone who supported me while I was gathering my evidence. I am forever indebted to your guidance and encouragement. I also want to say that I truly need your support right now as I go through this appeal stage.

@Akash_Joshi @Raphael @Francisca_Chiedu @pahuja

2 Likes
2

Hi @integral_codex Sorry about the outcome!

Firstly, to clarify: have you already submitted your appeal?

  • Yes you should address all points raised in the appeal incl. LORs.
  • They will re-evaluate your entire application.
  • You can appeal once.

Good luck!

2 Likes
3

Hello @pahuja,

Thank you for your response.

I haven’t submitted the appeal yet, I’m planning to do so this week after reviewing it once more. Could you please confirm if it is still necessary to attach a transcript to my appeal, given that I have already provided a detailed response addressing the assessor’s comments?

1 Like
4

Transcript is optional. If you have fit in satisfactory response in the appeal form, you don’t need to attach transcript.

1 Like
5

Looking at your rejection feedback, the assessors clearly missed the substantial evidence you provided for both MC and OC2. However, it’s difficult to assess this without looking at your actual evidences. I’ve seen similar cases where strong technical contributions get overlooked because assessors focus on easily scannable elements rather than diving deep into your actual impact. Your appeal should systematically walk them through each piece of evidence with explicit callouts to specific pages and sections they apparently didn’t review properly.

The feedback about your recommendation letters being “not unique” is particularly concerning since this suggests they think you may have used template language or lacked specific technical details about your contributions. For your appeal, ensure each letter explicitly mentions different aspects of your work with concrete examples and quantified impact. I’ve seen successful appeals where applicants provided annotated versions highlighting the unique elements in each letter that directly address the criteria requirements.

Your OC3 approval proves your technical competence is recognized, so focus your appeal energy on systematically addressing each MC and OC2 rejection point with precise evidence references. Appeals work best when they guide assessors to specific content they missed rather than just restating your case. Since you can only appeal once, make every word count by treating this as a comprehensive review rather than a defensive response.

2 Likes
6

Hello @Akash_Joshi, this is fantastic.

I sincerely appreciate your response.

I have submitted the appeal, and everything you mentioned aligns with about 90% of the points I raised. I highlighted areas where I felt the assessor may have overlooked key details. For the MC, it was unfortunate that it was ignored, so I made sure to point out where significant growth was demonstrated. For OC2, I also emphasized the areas that were overlooked. I sincerely hope the appeal will be successful.

Thank you very much. Once I receive the response to the appeal, I will share it here.

Thanks @Akash_Joshi @pahuja

3 Likes
7

Good luck @integral_codex

2 Likes
8

Best of luck! I hope your appeal succeeds!

2 Likes
9

You should address every reason for the non-endorsement. Based on the proforma, the evidence you provided are not compelling dor exceptional talent. I just imagine your application being assessed as someone at the forefront of their field, if your bench mrk it with recently endorsed application then you will see you need more than what you submitted to get endorsed. In any case send in your endorsement review based on how your submitted evidence meet the published criteria.

3 Likes
10

Hello @Francisca_Chiedu, thank you very much for your thoughtful opinion.

My main reason for submitting an appeal is because I strongly believe that the MC, in particular, should be accepted, given the clear and compelling evidence I provided which demonstrates significant growth in two product-led companies. This evidence was further backed by third-party validation and a reference from a digital expert, as well as the recognition of a high salary increase directly resulting from my contributions in one of the companies.

I also maintain confidence in the strength of my OC2 evidence, and I still have hope it will be recognised. However, if at least the MC and OC3 are accepted, even with comments on OC2, that would still give me the opportunity to build further on OC2 for a possible future application. Regardless, I remain hopeful for a successful review.

11

Thank you very much @pahuja.

1 Like
12

Much respect @Akash_Joshi, thank you too!

13

Hi @integral_codex, I think you may have submitted the wrong evidence for MC.

MC evidence should focus on demonstrating recognition.

You are to demonstrate via your evidence to have been recognised as (or recognised as having the potential to be) a leading talent in the digital technology sector in the last 5 years?

From the feedback, the reviewer was right. Its mentioned that the metrics you submitted did not show wider industry recognition. And from what you shared in response to @Francisca_Chiedu:

My main reason for submitting an appeal is because I strongly believe that the MC, in particular, should be accepted, given the clear and compelling evidence I provided which demonstrates significant growth in two product-led companies.

The issue is that the evidence required is for recognition, but what you submitted focused on significant growth in two product-led companies.The reviewer assessed it based on recognition, of course that is what is expected.

The best way to appeal a non-endorsement is to stay calm, and respond with facts and not with emotions, this begins with understanding the reasons for rejection. While there can sometimes be oversights, in most cases applicants don’t fully align their applications with the criteria.

What one needs to do in a case like this, is to acknowledge the mistake, then humbly appeal by asking them to please reassess the evidence under the correct category, while addressing other concerns.

It appears you have submitted, let’s be hopeful then.

All the best.

3 Likes
14

Hi @integral_codex

I agree with @Raphael MC is all about recognition, to meet the criteria you need to illustrate your recognition in national or international level, not the organisation level. you mention your submissions for Mandatory highlighted growth of 2 products, that would be accepted if submitted for innovation or impact criteria and potentially if submitted for Mandatory but via blogs, articles, news, that highlight your recognition.

The question? how are you recognised in the industry? on higher level than your employment achievements within the organisation.

The structure of the application is so much important, sometimes, it is even more important than the evidences themselves; if strong evidence was submitted for the wrong criteria , sadly , it will be dismissed.

As suggested, keep emotions aside, many applicants were rejected, because of the weak structure of the evidences, and not their competence.

I wish you all the best in your appeal, worst scenario, you will get additional feedback. Always remember you know the strengths of you as an applicant and your application, assessors just know you from your submission. if you dont provide the story of your journey no-one else would know it, because you know the story the best, and we and the assessors just know you from your submission.

regards,

4 Likes
15

Hello @Raphael @Maya

Thank you very much once again for your sincere contribution.

I wanted to clarify that the evidence I submitted is all focused on the category I am quoting below from the Tech Nation guidelines:

“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.”

According to the guidelines, “Examples of relevant evidence could include reference letters from leading industry experts, news coverage, lines of code, or other similar evidence demonstrating product-led growth.” My submitted evidence falls around these examples and includes:

  • Reference letter from an industry expert (CEO of Company A) describing my leadership and contributions to the product.
  • Evidence of growth and regional expansion driven by the product I created, including a new digital payment concept I led.
  • Client testimonials highlighting adoption and impact of the product.
  • Revenue growth metrics demonstrating the commercial success of the product.
  • Lines of code screenshots showing my direct technical contributions.
  • News coverage of the product and company highlighting its market impact and adoption.

Since this is the route I chose, I have these following questions:

  1. Because I opted in specifically for the product-led growth category, does it mean that evidence strictly focused on the product-led achievements (letters, revenue growth, regional expansion, client adoption, and code contributions) is NOT sufficient on its own, or do assessors usually expect me to also include recognition outside the company (such as speaking engagements, interviews, or mentorship)?
  2. On the point of news clippings in the guideline, does this need to be coverage that names me directly, or can it also be valid if it’s coverage of the company/product I led, even if my name is not explicitly mentioned?
  3. When it comes to news coverage, does it have to be about the product and company I led, or does it need to be about my personal recognition and profile in the industry?
  4. If the news coverage is about the company/product, what kind of content is considered strong evidence? For example, should it focus on revenue growth, market expansion, client adoption, or other company achievements that resulted from the product I led?
  5. If I decide to add new news coverage about me personally to show industry recognition, what type of content would be considered strong evidence? For example, should it highlight my impact on the industry, contributions to innovation, speaking engagements, mentoring? And if the evidence does not include any personal coverage, awards, speaking engagements, or mentorship, does that make the evidence I submitted insufficient or invalid for the Mandatory Criteria?

I will appreciate your contributions too: @Francisca_Chiedu @pahuja @Akash_Joshi

16

Yes! You are to show that you were recognised for all you said you did. Also note, that is an example of what an evidence for MC could be and any of those must satisfy the MC criterion. - Recognition

4 Likes
17

Hello @Raphael , thank you very much for your immense contributions.

Once I get a feedback, will share here.

1 Like
18

My thoughts and prayers are with you. All the best.

1 Like
19

Thank you all for your support so far.

Unfortunately, I was not successful in my appeal with Tech Nation. While this is a setback, I want to make it clear that I am not giving up or stepping back.

What I find difficult to understand is how one is expected to demonstrate the growth of a product-led company. I provided evidence of real business impact, product adoption, and my individual contributions, including how the products have driven significant revenue growth. Yet, this still did not meet the required criteria.

Adding to the confusion, Tech Nation appears to have classified the CEO of my current company as just a colleague. That decision is surprising. If a CEO is not considered a valid referee, then who is? I genuinely feel lost on that point.

That said, I remain focused and determined to keep moving forward.

I would really appreciate your thoughts or suggestions on what I could improve in my next application. Your feedback would mean a great deal to me.

What also stood out to me in their response is the impression that contributions made as an employee may not hold much weight. If I provide clear evidence of my impact within a company, is that no longer considered valid? Does all evidence now need to come from work done completely outside of employment? It seems as though my contributions at [MC] were disregarded, or perhaps I have misunderstood what is expected. Any clarity or insight you can share would be greatly appreciated.

Please see below the response I received from Tech Nation for your reference.

Lastly, I am now seriously considering reapplying under the Exceptional Promise route, as the Exceptional Talent path feels increasingly difficult to navigate at the moment (Smiles).

Thank you again for your continued support.

CC: @Akash_Joshi @Raphael @pahuja @Maya

Re: Application for Endorsement for Global Talent (stage 1)

Thank you for your Application for Endorsement under the Global Talent category. The application was forwarded to Tech Nation on 24 Jul 2025 and they have provided a recommendation to the Home Office.

You have requested that the decision not to endorse your application be reviewed.

The Home Office forwarded your request to Tech Nation and it has confirmed it is satisfied with the recommendation not to endorse. We have included further details regarding the decision below:

We have reviewed the applicant’s request for an endorsement review for the Global Talent Visa (GTV) under the Exceptional Talent pathway. This feedback takes into account the points raised in their formal complaint. While all evidence has been thoroughly reviewed, not every piece of evidence has been commented on below. After a thorough reassessment, our decision to not endorse the application remains.

Whilst we congratulate the applicant on their personal growth and clear role progression, it is the Assessor’s view that their career history is typical for a backend engineer and does not demonstrate the level of niche expertise or accountability expected of a recognised leader under the Exceptional Talent route.

The letters of recommendation are kind and complimentary, particularly regarding the applicant’s work contributions. However, they describe duties and achievements that are in line with expectations for their senior role, rather than work that is exceptionally advanced. We also note that some company logos on the letters are of very low resolution, which detracts from the professional presentation of the evidence.

Regarding the Mandatory Criterion, the work examples at AAA describe activity that is standard for a senior backend engineer. As per the guidelines, screenshots from professional networking sites are not eligible evidence of recognition, and activity in a company GitHub demonstrates effort, not necessarily external recognition from the sector. Furthermore, additional support letters from colleagues are not permissible as evidence for this criterion. The applicant’s compensation, whilst generous for their geography, is not considered exceptional when compared to their wider international peer group.

MC IS NOT MET.

For Optional Criterion 2, we have considered the applicant’s arguments. The applicant is very active on GitHub, but none of their original repositories demonstrate the meaningful traction or adoption necessary to signal an advancement of the field. Regarding conference speaking, there is no 100-person benchmark as claimed; the test is whether the content constitutes original thought leadership that could advance the sector. The applicant’s talks are foundational and do not meet this standard. Stack Overflow is a technical forum for problem-solving, not a platform for advancing the field. We acknowledge the XXX contribution is valid, but on its own, it is not sufficient. We also note the use of excessive external links, which cannot all be reviewed as per the guidelines.

OC2 IS NOT MET.

For Optional Criterion 3, evidence relating to BBB cannot be considered as it is not a product-led digital technology company as defined by the guidelines. AAA does qualify, and whilst the eligibility of CCC is questionable, the benefit of the doubt has been given due to the strength of the work exampled. On this basis, this criterion is generously met.

OC3 IS MET.

To be endorsed for Exceptional Talent, an applicant must meet the Mandatory Criterion and two of the four Optional Criteria. The applicant has met only one Optional Criterion and has not met the Mandatory Criterion. The evidence demonstrates a skilled professional, but not a recognised leading talent.

On the basis of the above, we do not endorse this application.

NB: What’s even more confusing is that OC3 was clearly accepted in the initial feedback I received. The first assessor explicitly agreed that the companies listed under OC3 are product-led. However, a different assessor later took a completely different view. Saying they now “gracefully endorse OC3” honestly feels inconsistent and, frankly, a bit odd.

20

@integral_codex

I am sorry to hear about the outcome of your appeal, and I wish you the very best with your future reapplication. Now that you have received two sets of feedback, you can use them to strengthen your next application. The most important step is to fully understand the TN requirements by carefully studying the official guidance, which is the only reliable source of truth. You may also want to seek support from an experienced expert who has a solid understanding of the process and can guide you effectively.

All the best.

2 Likes