I’ve pretty much decided not to apply again after three attempts.
Across my applications, different criteria were accepted each time — one accepted OC2 + OC3, another MC alone, and another MC + OC2 — but I was still rejected overall.
In the latest one, Tech Nation said my investor LOI was old, but it only became old because the Home Office referred my case to Tech Nation weeks after I submitted it. That was completely outside my control.
They also referred to evidence incorrectly, including using the wrong currency symbol for figures in the evidence I submitted.
At this point, it honestly feels like their current goal is just leeching £560 from applicants. I’ve even seen a YC-backed founder get rejected, so now I genuinely question whether the assessors are qualified to do the job properly.
Maybe I will start a social media series exposing the non-qualification of TN assessors. Interview people who have been victims. Honestly They have become really careless. Best thing we can hope is Home office brings a new endorsing body a
I emailed home office about this and their mistakes after the appeal and theire response was
"I have uploaded your email to the system, however when you reapply you can put your concerns on your new application.'i
I’m really sorry to hear about the outcome. It’s always tough to face a rejection, especially when you genuinely believe you’ve met the standard. From the what you shared with some criteria accepted and others rejected, it seems the approach for your appeal may not have been as strategic as it needed to be. I remember you reached out at the time, and I suggested a different direction you could take.
I also agree that Tech Nation can sometimes overlook important points, and when applicants highlight those clearly in an appeal, they often reconsider.
For anyone who might read this and feel discouraged, I want to share something from my experience: I have yet to see Tech Nation reject strong, well structured application that is externally validated by reputable platforms, organisations and individuals, clearly aligned with the criteria, and supported by a consistent narrative and career trajectory. Other people’s opinions or experiences don’t define your own path.
Your evidence is unique, your story is unique, and your application should reflect that uniqueness in full.
Thanks for the encouragement Raphael. But I have to accept the fact they have become very careless using wrong currency symbol on proforma against my evidences actually shows how careless and Inconsiderate are the assessors.
Anyway I have decided to send an email to the CEO of TN and Gm of endorsement an email regrading their inconsistencies and training of assessors with collecting evidences like my case of carelessness from the forum. May it help others in the future at least. Meanwhile I will be trying for the innovator founder visa
I mean i have seen few members commenting such cases of TN’s carelessness on assessment,inconsistencies, overlooking evidences or not carefully reviewing.
@mohamed_rimshadpcs Please don’t take what people post here seriously. I remember when some applicants here were saying the same thing. I personally sent them DMs asking them to share the rejections and I will give some guidance just to support them. They did not. Also, for few of them who later met with me, I can only say it is well. It is a very bad thing when one doesn’t know and does not know they don’t know and of course one can be running very fast in the wrong direction.
Also, you did say “I even applied with helps of experts” you mentioned this to me and on checking it’s sad on how applicants trust such people.
Anyways, whilst I understand and I can feel you pains, we also need to encourage other people who don’t have other options like yourself.
@mohamed_rimshadpcs I haven’t seen your application, but having the same criteria accepted in one attempt and rejected in another despite presenting the same evidence is understandably frustrating. It points to differing interpretations of the same checklist and evidence by members of the same team.
I would feel equally concerned if this happened to me. I’d strongly recommend escalating it to the senior leadership and CXOs at Tech Nation. As an applicant receiving such inconsistent outcomes, I would have done the same. I wish you good luck!
To your last point of seeing even a YC backed founder being rejected - I recently reviewed a rejection of a partner investor at SoftBank fund who has handled billions of $$ of investments. TN application especially asks for external references of validations beyond letters which becomes tricky many times for even highly qualified and capable tech professionals. Getting a GTV or not is no question about their capabilities but I have seen it constantly boil down to lack of enough third party evidences beyond letters from senior execs in the same company (which is considered insufficient). It’s unfortunate!
We write to confirm receipt of your correspondence raising concerns within the Global Talent digital technology route.
We take feedback of this nature seriously and it will be reviewed internally by the appropriate team.
However, we cannot discuss the specifics of any individual applications or assessment decisions, nor can we commit to any particular course of action in response to individual correspondence.
The Home Office remains the appropriate route for any further enquiries.
I also commented following on Tech nation Visa lead post about GTV event, and I think it hit the spot
They deleted it
""From my own experience across multiple Global Talent applications, the process felt difficult to understand because the feedback was not always consistent. For example:
MC, OC2 and OC3 were assessed differently across different applications;
evidence that had been accepted before was later treated differently;
my investor Letter of Intent was treated as old, even though it was issued around six weeks before I submitted the application, and only became older because of the Home Office referral timeline;
one assessment referred to a financial figure using the wrong currency symbol;
some factual points I raised in the endorsement review were not directly answered.
I fully understand that endorsement is not guaranteed and that individual cases cannot be discussed publicly. But when applicants pay £561 for an endorsement application, I think it is reasonable to expect factual points raised in a review to be addressed clearly.
It would be helpful to hear how Tech Nation checks assessment quality, avoids factual mistakes, and makes sure MC, OC2 and OC3 evidence is reviewed consistently across applications.“”
Did you consider/try filing a PAP pre-action after a rejection?
PAP usually means Pre-Action Protocol. In UK immigration/visa matters, it normally refers to a formal legal letter sent before starting Judicial Review against the Home Office/UKVI.
It is not an appeal and it is not a fresh application. It is a way of saying: “The decision is legally wrong or procedurally unfair, and you should reconsider before I take this to court.”
The official Judicial Review protocol says PAP is meant to help both sides identify the issues, exchange relevant information, try to settle without court, reduce costs, and prepare properly if litigation cannot be avoided.
Hi,
Thanks I have got email address of Ceo,Tech nation
I will sending a normal email first on Monday and see what happens, on the other hand My reply on Global talent visa Programme Lead, was deleted for the second time. not only just deleted They blocked me after. My comment was very Polite. That was really unprofessional from their side.
This shows exactly how horrendous and non-transparent their process is. They should stop pretending there’s any meaningful review taking place and just admit they’re rejecting people left, right, and center without properly assessing the credibility of the evidence submitted. If they had even a shred of integrity, they could have at least acknowledged your message. Instead, they deleted it and blocked you. That tells you everything you need to know about how incompetent and unaccountable they are.
What makes it even more ridiculous is that I’ve been invited multiple times to appear on national media platforms comparable to BBC UK to discuss AI and government AI policy. Their justification for rejecting my application was that my participation was “brief.” Seriously? I was formally invited on multiple occasions to speak about AI policy at a national level. The irony is that I’m willing to bet many of the people reviewing these applications have not accomplished even half of what I have professionally.
The entire process looks arbitrary, careless, and completely disconnected from the actual merits of the applicants. When people are rejected despite clear, verifiable achievements, it becomes obvious that the system is either fundamentally broken or being run by people who have no idea what they’re doing.
There’s so much effort and hope on putting together this application - such outcomes are disheartening!
