Exceptional Talent Application Rejected - Review MC, OC2, OC3

Stage 1
1

Hi everyone!

I have applied for the exceptional talent based on my individual product leadership, sector contributions, and global recognition.

I received a rejection within 5 days of my application. I have already compiled a detailed response for the feedback I received and submitted my appeal. I would love to get some feedback on the strength of my application and see if everything I submitted meets the criteria.

About Me

I am a Senior UI/UX Designer with 8+ years of experience working across B2B SaaS, fintech, and enterprise platforms. I have led product design for companies later acquired by global tech firms, contributed to Microsoft’s enterprise tools, and driven design innovation at a multinational SaaS company. Alongside my full-time roles, I actively mentor upcoming designers, judge hackathons, speak at conferences, and contribute to global design publications.

Letters of Recommendation

  • Founder and CMO of a global tech firm acquired by a US-based MNC
  • Founder of a leading global ed-tech platform backed by top VC firms
  • VP of Product at a global talent assessment company to validate high-impact work and global recognition
  • Additional reference from the Founder of a Microsoft-partnered AI tech company (acquired by Tech Mahindra), a former senior leader at Microsoft and serial entrepreneur
  • Additional reference from Co-founder and COO of UJJI AI (Tech Nation Rising Stars awardee), a UK-based AI learning platform. He highlights my public recognition, thought leadership, and relevance to the UK tech ecosystem.

Mandatory Criteria

1. High Remuneration Evidence
Description: Payslip from current employer showing a base salary of ÂŁ89,000, approx. 30% higher than the UK average for senior UX roles. Demonstrates market demand and professional standing.

2. Industry Recognition Evidence
Description: Proof of keynote talk at Conf42 (500+ attendees, 5K+ online views) and judging panel invite for Geekle Hackathon (270K+ community). Screenshots and official listings included.

3. Ongoing Media Recognition Evidence
Description: Featured in 3 TechBullion articles as a UX expert on GDS, AR/VR, and ethical design. Total reach of the platform exceeded 2M during the period of publication.

Optional Criteria 2 — Recognition for Contributions Outside Immediate Employment

4. Articles Published
Description: Thought leadership articles on Hackernoon and TechGrid (views: 10K to 24K) covering inclusive UX, data visualization, and innovation frameworks.

5. Conference Keynote Speaker
Description: Keynote at Batumi Tech Weekend (200+ attendees). Presentation focused on how users adapt enterprise tools beyond intended UX, driving design innovation.

6. Mentorship Impact
Description: Voluntary mentorship through DesignLab, guiding over 100 designers. Includes mentee testimonials and outcomes such as placements at Cisco and HP.

7. Letter from GrowthSchool Founder
Description: Letter recognizing my contribution to building the platform’s design foundation, along with long-term mentorship and UX guidance.

Optional Criteria 3 — Significant Technical Contribution to Digital Products

8. SHL Contributions
Description: Led UX design of SHL Mobilize (now award-winning) and the ION Design System. Submission includes screenshots, press coverage, and internal adoption metrics.

9. Scale It Right Platform Design
Description: Designed Superflow, a sales strategy automation tool that helped scale the company and contributed to its acquisition. Evidence includes wireframes, internal dashboards, and LoR from founder.

10. ARKK Solutions Platform Redesign
Description: Led UX overhaul of a compliance-focused fintech platform. Includes proof of usability gains, improved audit results, and contribution to platform’s client growth.

I’d love your honest feedback on the structure, balance between criteria, and relevance of these documents.

I’ve submitted this information previously and got a rejection.
I submitted my appeal on the 9th of May 2025 and received one edit so far. Waiting for the result now.

Thank you in advance for your feedback!

2

It’s very challenging to fairly comment on an applications strength without seeing the application content itself and align it to the rejection feedback.

3

@pahuja
I have updated the content of my post which might better articulate my profile details.
Is this helpful?

4

@Francisca_Chiedu @Akash_Joshi
Would really appreciate feedback from you. Please let me know if I can share any further information that might help understand my case better.

5

What was the reason for rejection?

6

@Akash_Joshi

Here is the feedback that I received:

The candidate has applied for the Global Talent Visa (GTV) through the Exceptional Talent (ET) pathway. While all evidence has been reviewed, not all may be commented on. After careful review, it is the opinion of the assessor that the candidate does not meet any criteria for endorsement. Regarding their roles and positions over the past 5 years, we respect their experience in product design with a specific focus on UI/UX. While clearly capable, there are no meaningfully advanced role descriptions or niche skills presented by comparison to an ET awardee within the same peer group. Regarding their mandatory references, they are very complimentary regarding the candidate’s actual work. This is supportive. But mentions of talks and mentoring lack significance by comparison to an ET awardee. Accomplishments in product improvements appear good but these references do not suggest a candidate of merit. Some signatures are also very clearly digitally created and are not provided with audit trails, as required.

Regarding their specific examples in support of Mandatory Criteria (MC), their compensation is not exceptionally high. Their insights on TechBullion are noted but we require stats of their unique articles to ascertain whether the candidate is exceptionally well recognised. The content of the article is relatively basic, covering topics covered by hundreds of other designers with a public presence. We have a lot of respect for Conf42, but their stats - while moderately high - are not exceptionally so. Geekle is more relevant and taken into consideration. On balance, the evidence does not convince us they have gained sustained and significant acclaim as a technology leader at a national/international level. MC is not met.

Regarding Optional Criteria 2, their articles show no signs of having advanced a technology field. Neither do they celebrate prior field advancement directly authored by the candidate. These are fairly ubiquitous articles with no exceptionally novel angle or insight. We do respect DesignLab. But it is not a program with a strong reputation for advancing technology fields. There is also no evidence that any specific contribution by the candidate has done so. We hold the same opinion of IT Batumi Community. Their support with GrowthSchool is noted. On balance, too few relevant examples are provided to meet OC2.

Regarding Optional Criteria 3, due to the nature of their work and many mentions of being a contractor on Linkedin, we require explicit evidence that the candidate as a valid employee, founder, exec, or board member of each project exampled to be eligible. We also stress that while support letters are considered, they are not examples. We need objective evidence of what each contribution was alongside objective evidence of the impact of those contributions. The support letter regarding GTM Studio appears to signal the candidate supporting studio based projects and Zens (where they were a contractor). Their ARKK evidence is also not convincing. The candidate was present for 9 months and no employment evidence is given. We also do ot consider their evidence of impact to be unique to the candidate but instead represent the entire team’s effort. The provided support letter is unsigned. Awards for SHL are noted, but again, these are accolades that recognise many people’s work at once - not uniquely the candidate’s. Their examples of contribution, with respect, are basic/typical examples of work for any capable UI/UX professional. OC3 is not met.

8

Hi @yashkotha,

Please remember that the people here offering feedback are volunteers contributing their time outside of their own work, so sometimes replies can take a little while. Your patience is appreciated as people get a chance to review.

My two cents on your application, bearing in mind that I haven’t looked into its contents would be these:

A key challenge highlighted is the need for stronger independent validation of your claims and clearly differentiating your individual impact from team achievements.

Letters of Recommendation: Your recommenders have strong titles, which is a good start. However, the feedback suggests the letters didn’t sufficiently articulate why you are considered a leading talent or highlight specific instances of significant external recognition. Ensure your referees provide concrete examples of your impact and standing in the sector, going beyond general praise. Also, the note about digital signatures needs to be addressed.

MC:

  • Remuneration: Your salary is healthy, but the panel noted it wasn’t considered “exceptionally high” for the ET standard. High salary alone is typically not sufficient for MC; it’s usually supportive evidence for leadership demonstrated through other means.
  • Recognition (Speaking/Media): The feedback indicates that while your speaking engagements (Conf42) and media features (TechBullion) were noted, the scale of recognition (attendee numbers, platform reach without specific article stats) and the perceived depth/novelty of the content were not considered “sustained and significant acclaim” at the national/international ET level. For future applications, aim for speaking at more prominent, internationally recognized tech conferences or publishing in more widely respected tech media outlets with clear impact from your specific contributions (e.g., articles sparking significant discussion).

OC2: The panel’s main point here is that your activities (articles, Batumi talk, DesignLab mentoring, GrowthSchool support) did not sufficiently demonstrate contribution to the advancement of the digital technology sector. Articles were seen as general, mentoring as career-focused rather than field-advancing, and the speaking/mentoring platforms were not noted for significant field advancement. To meet this criterion, you need evidence of activities outside your job that directly push the tech field forward. For instance: open-source contributions, research publications, organizing significant tech community initiatives, or mentoring in reputed programs.

OC3:

  • Employment Status: There was a query regarding your status (employee, founder, etc.) for some projects, especially given mentions of contract work. You need explicit evidence confirming your eligible role for each contribution.
  • Independent Evidence: Support letters are supportive but not objective proof. You need robust external, verifiable evidence of your specific technical contributions and their impact for SHL, Scale It Right, and ARKK.
  • Individual Impact: The feedback noted that the impact (awards, client growth) appeared to be team achievements, not uniquely yours. You must clearly isolate and demonstrate your specific, individual impact on the project’s technical success using quantifiable metrics where possible.
  • Level of Contribution: Your contributions were perceived as “basic/typical” for a capable UI/UX professional. You need to highlight contributions that are technically complex, innovative, or had an exceptionally large-scale or critical impact.

Hope this helps.

9

I am not sure what you mean by nobody wants to help a stress ma. We all have our day jobs and working weeks can be busy, besides, I mostly respond based on questions that came me from the bottom of my last visit. There are still people I need to attend to before you. if you are in a hurry you can always pay a global talent consultant to help you draft an Endorsement review. The issues with your application are mainly your the content of your recommendation and your OC3.

The mandatory criteria and Osc2 can be argued. Point to to the tech nation. Guide on how you meet the criteria for high profile conferences, gives some more context about the speaking event, also explain that articles like tech bullion does not have individual metrics per article that iis if truly they don’t, not sure.

10

Thanks for the response, Wasn’t trying to offend anyone. Just wanted to get someone’s attention as I was struggling with the mental pressure around this.

Apologies for my statement.

11

It seems like the committee didn’t find your application to match the technation guidelines. You need to rework your application according to the guidelines.

12

@yashkotha since you have already submitted the appeal, wish you good luck! Praying for you

1 Like
13

Hi @yashkotha

I know the pressure of preparing materials and facing rejection must be very high. I got exceptional talent as a UXUI designer. If you need someone to talk to or look at materials, maybe I can help.

1 Like