I’m almost done preparing my documents
But I’m confused as to how to properly group my evidences
This is how I’m currently doing it
MC (grouping option 1 )
evidence 1 : RL company 1(2page)
evidence 2: RL company 2 (2 page)
evidence 3: work contracts ( 3 page document with screenshots of 5 of my work contracts for 5 different companies)
evidence 4: high salary ( 3 page document with screenshots of salaries from 5 different companies explaining why the salary is high)
evidence 5: pull request and line of codes ( 3 page document showing screenshots of line of codes for 2 companies I worked for )
Is this the correct way to group my evidence ?
Or must all evidence fall under each company ?
I.e
MC (grouping option 2)
evidence 1 - RL from company 1 + contract + high salary proof + PR/line of code
evidence 2 - RL from company 2 + contract + high salary proof + PR/line of code
And so on…
The reason why I’m not using the second option is that it would exceed 3 pages which is the maximum for each evidence supplied as my reference letters are 2 pages long and the other 1 page won’t contain the additional evidences.
The news talked about the revenue that the app I contributed to made in the 3rd and 4th quarter while I was still in the company
I’m not really sure, I would’ve added both contract and salary if not for the reason that it would exceed 3 pages for that evidence. That was why I separated work contracts from salary. As I would need to explain why the salary is high for each company
Yes most of my evidence are high Salary, lines of code and reference letters.
Regarding the news, I onboarded partner services to the app. And those services generated revenue and orders which contributed to an 11% growth in gmv for that quarter. The reference letters and lines of code already talked about/showed my contributions. Do you think adding the news is necessary? Would I be penalized for an “out of scope” evidence?
Yes I cropped out all the contract letters for 5 companies to make those 3 pages. I couldn’t crop them smaller as some important details would be missed out on.
Do you mean I should crop them smaller and include a Google drive link to each full document?
I’m not sure if the TN guide mentioned that. What I’m sure of is that it says we shouldn’t used the full page, only a crop of the important section. But I’ll check again
Please crop the document in a way that it would be readable by the assessor without seeking additional info. Yes, you can include a link to the full document on Google Drive. I have worked with a number of people that got endorsed by doing this. However, the guide clearly states that any provided evidence should be legible when printed.
You also don’t need to include all 5 contracts. One or 2 should be fine to show you earn high income. You want to ensure you show the other mentioned criteria too. There are multiple examples for each criteria. I think it is always generally safer to tick multiple boxes in each category. You should also show a track record.
Which brings me to the next point. The grouping itself is not what matters. It is more about you having a cohesive (and strong) story (with evidence) of why you qualify based on the criteria you have chosen.
I worry you may not have enough evidence of things you have done outside your day to day work. What you have mentioned (1 news clipping that does not even mention you) does not seem sufficient to me.
This is simply my opinion, not to be mistaken as legal or immigration advice.
On the other note, is it acceptable to use mandatory recommendation letters for optional and/or main criteria or do they sit within their own domain and should not be reused for MC/OC?
Strictly following the guide, it is up to you.
I mean if you won a Nobel prize, you don’t even need any documentary evidence.
In practice, the documentary evidence is designed to enable you share some additional information to show that what you said (in your personal statement and CV) and what your recommenders are saying (the 3 recommendation letter) is true and correct. You ideally should be showing some evidence (not the same letters) based on your specific claims and how your profile meets the criteria.
Summary: it is rare that the letters would be self-evident.
@badesemowo
Thank you for the clarification
So if I understand your point, the screenshot of all 5 work contracts/salary on the same documents is fine? I would include a google drive link to the full contract as well, thank you for that suggestion.
These are evidences I would be submitting for MC and some of OC1 (impact) alone.
For activities done outside of work, I have some other lined up evidence that I would submit. I am definitely not using these ones I mentioned.
I just wanted to confirm if the arrangement for the first option is OK.
The news clipping is an additional evidence to support a mention of my contribution that was a part of revenue increment in that quarter. One of the reference letters mentioned it, so I added the news to further validate. The news is not about me
For activities done outside of work, I have some other lined up evidence that I would submit. I am definitely not using these ones I mentioned. Its only for MC and OC1
hello,
i can see that you provided 5 evidences for the Mandatory Criteria which is
(recognition) .
To my understanding the application must meet 1 Mandatory Criteria which is (Recognition) and at least two Optional Criteria which are (Innovation, Impact, Recognition outside work, and academic Contribution) .
If you select 1 MC and 2 OC,then 10 evidences may be distributed among these 3 criteria. say 3, 4,3.
You will need to decide on how many criteria you are applying for based on evidences you have.
What are the optional criteria you selected and what evidences are you providing for each one.
In regards with grouping, you can group evidences if they are related and you have enough evidences to add.
Regarding grouping based on companies, I dont think this is a good approach and did not see anyone i know whether in this forum or elsewhere doing that.
Disclaimer : I am not an expert, and others in this forum may have other views.
These current evidence are going to be spread across MC and OC1 (Impact)
I’m also aware that I can use the same evidence for both if they are applicable.
For the OC2, I’m using recognition outside of work.
The evidence I’m using is an open source app that I developed on playstore with 1k+ downloads and good reviews about its use and my contributions and impact on stackoverflow and github.
For now I’m more particular about how to group my evidence particularly for MC and OC. I didn’t list the other ones because they are distinct (unlike work contracts and Salary statements)
@Yusuf_Adebanjo and @Victrr I would also recommend that if you could provide some additional evidence than just the “High salary” and “Code evidence”. You could provide additional endorsement letter (may be of 1 page) separate from your 3 main LORs and include them within the relevant evidence document. The 1 page endorsement letters could focus on your particular contributions to the project or product on which you are trying to provide evidence for.
Disclaimer: This is just a suggestion and I am an applicant like you.
