Hi everyone,
I’ve just received a rejection for my Global Talent Visa application under the Digital Technology Business Track (Product Marketing Manager). The reason cited was that I did not meet the Mandatory Criteria (MC).
I’m now considering an appeal or review, and would really appreciate any guidance or experiences from others who might have gone through a similar process, especially those from marketing or non-technical backgrounds.
Any insights on how best to structure the appeal, or what kind of additional evidence could strengthen the case, would be incredibly helpful. Thank you in advance!
Application structure:
Oh! Sorry about this. Why not reach out to one of the experts for support.
It depends on the Proforma, share the feedback you got for a batter adivce.
Hi, here is the overall assessment panel feedback:
We have reviewed the applicant’s request for an endorsement decision for the Global Talent Visa
(GTV) under the Exceptional Talent (ET) pathway.
After thorough assessment, we do not endorse this application.
Below are our specific comments on each aspect of the Tech Nation criteria, assessing only eligible
evidence that meets Tech Nation’s guidelines. While all eligible evidence has been reviewed, it may
not be commented on below. Any evidence that does not meet the guidelines is considered to have
significantly less credibility and may not have been taken into account.
Regarding the applicant’s professional history, we acknowledge their product marketing experience,
but there is a lack of exceptionally advanced or niche roles, responsibilities, or skills described in
their professional profiles that suggest merit as an exceptional talent in technology.
Concerning their mandatory references and support letters, while they are complimentary and
describe a valued colleague, they do not mention prestigious accolades or recognitions for
pioneering achievement in the technology sector. They discuss championing women in technology
and community support. While supportive of the candidate’s character and work ethic, they do not
mention a respected technology leader with sustained national or international acclaim.
With respect to the Mandatory Criterion, their compensation is not notably high. Their examples of
work only demonstrate competence in their role. They do not indicate exceptional recognition as a
pioneering tech leader. Their support letters regarding speaking engagements seem to serve more
as company promotion rather than recognition of the candidate’s established position as a tech
leader. As such, the MC is not satisfied.
Regarding Optional Criterion 2, their support of WSM is commendable and appreciated. However,
there is a clear distinction between community support and field advancement. We see no evidence
that WSM significantly advances tech fields, nor that the candidate’s contributions are viewed as
leading to an exceptional standard. We do not consider MAD of the month a credible accolade for
field advancement. Therefore, OC2 is not awarded.
Regarding Optional Criterion 3, we value the support letters attesting to the candidate’s competence
and contribution. However, these describe contributions that we would see as valued within a team
or role, aligning with typical expectations. They do not demonstrate exceptionally unique impacts
beyond those expectations. Hence, OC3 cannot be granted.
In conclusion, we do not endorse this applicant.
1 Like
" The reason cited was that I did not meet the Mandatory Criteria (MC) ."
Not really, acc. to the assessment panel feedback your application did not meet any of the 3 criteria. Not sure how it is possible to appeal but hopefully experts will be able to advise.
2 Likes
