Help on rejection

Hi, I applied in late November and received the talent rejection letter. I am drafting a review and would like to get your thoughts.

Feedback

The applicant has applied via the Exceptional Talent pathway. In this case, the evidence provided is insufficient to meet the requirements for the Global Talent Visa.

Regarding the mandatory criteria, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the applicant has been recognised as a leading talent in the digital technology sector. The applicant has provided the required letters of recommendation from previous firms which, on their own are insufficient to demonstrate leading talent, and in this case outline the applicants roles, but do not address what makes him a leading talent. The media examples provided refer to the firms where the applicant has been an employee vs recognising the applicant. We are unable to award the Mandatory Criteria.

Optional Criteria 1 requires a track record of innovation as a founder of a product led digital technology company or as an employee working on a new digital field or concept. The evidence provided demonstrates iteration vs innovation at [Company 1] (as stated by the applicant). Regarding the work carried out at [Company 2] to develop an API explorer, it is evident there were improvements to the system, but does not meet the requirements for an innovative new digital field or concept. We are unable to award OC1.

Optional Criteria 3 requires that the applicant should have made significant technical, commercial or entrepreneurial contributions to the field as a founder, senior executive, board member or employee of a product-led digital technology company. The applicant has provided documentation demonstrating a conversion rates doubled at [Company 2], and scheduled payments rose from 1% to 5%. We are able to award OC3.

Therefore, on the basis of the evidence provided, this application for the Global Talent visa cannot be endorsed.

** Application **

  • Mandatory criteria: I applied from the UK. I submitted three documents for mandatory criteria: high salary proof, media mentions + public speaking, and a portfolio.
    I am confused as the letters clearly state my actions and the impact my work had on the firm growth and prizes awarded.
    Additionally, there is no feedback for the high salary document (on percentile 95 of the UK).
    Finally, I do not get why media mentions are not sufficient, given that we applied as a firm to competition for firms and not individuals. These are world-class award bodies where firms like Airbnb received mentorship, and a team can apply as a firm, not individual.
    On top of that, there are no comments about the public speaking evidence I submitted.
    My impression is they ignored several pieces of evidence I submitted.

  • Optional Criteria 1: I submitted the work of iterative prototyping, typical in innovation procedures. I showed the road we had to deliver a final version. The product delivered is a b2b solution and is not used by anyone else in the industry. Furthermore, a third project was used, and no feedback was provided.

Finally, there was no revision for promise as well.
Any thoughts are appreciated.

@Francisca_Chiedu

The media is often about recognition of the applicants work. If you were not specifically mentioned in the articulate how does it show that you have been recognised. Aside the hight salary and media what else did you submit for MC? You need to point them to the high salary and any other evidence that meets the criteria but your media evidence really doesn’t cut it.

What other evidence did you submit for OC1 and OC3. It is easier to appeal when you have other evidence that was overlooked. From what you have shared it seems your evidence where insufficient for exceptional talent, you need to pass two in each of the criteria.

1 Like

Thanks for your comment @Francisca_Chiedu

  1. Media mention was about two awards for the firm. It was a startup, and the CEO reference letter states my contribution back then.
  2. I added public speaking evidence from a UN forum where I was a speaker (for a digital product I led), blog news from my current company and my portfolio.
  3. Optional Criteria # 3 was granted. For # 1, I believe they misunderstood my evidence and focused on the process instead. On top of that, they ignored the third project I stated.

It was an award for the firm but the news clipping didn’t give you credit for it. The mandatory criteria clearly stated that you must demonstrate that you have been recognised as a leading talent in the digital technology sector. The media evidence clearly didn’t mention you. You can argue otherwise if you were a founder of the company but in this case you are not.

The UN even is also not a high-profile digital technology sector event. Is the UN event a digital technology sector event? Besides the invitation was related to your work, you were not invited because of your leadership in the sector. Again, you can explain to the assessor if the invitation was based of your thought leadership in the sector.
In all, I think folks should try to submit evidence based on what they are trying to prove

1 Like

It was an award for the firm but the news clipping didn’t give you credit for it. The mandatory criteria clearly stated that you must demonstrate that you have been recognised as a leading talent in the digital technology sector. The media evidence clearly didn’t mention you. You can argue otherwise if you were a founder of the company but in this case you are not.

The UN even is also not a high-profile digital technology sector event. Is the UN event a digital technology sector event? Besides the invitation was related to your work, you were not invited because of your leadership in the sector. Again, you can explain to the assessor if the invitation was based of your thought leadership in the sector.
In all, I think folks should try to submit evidence based on what they are trying to prove

1 Like

It was an award for the firm but the news clipping didn’t give you credit for it. The mandatory criteria clearly stated that you must demonstrate that you have been recognised as a leading talent in the digital technology sector. The media evidence clearly didn’t mention you. You can argue otherwise if you were a founder of the company but in this case you are not.

The UN even is also not a high-profile digital technology sector event. Is the UN event a digital technology sector event? Besides the invitation was related to your work, you were not invited because of your leadership in the sector. Again, you can explain to the assessor if the invitation was based of your thought leadership in the sector.
In all, I think folks should try to submit evidence based on what they are trying to prove

Humm, interesting thoughts.
The criteria mentions I can be an employee too.
If this was not enough nevertheless, the UN event talk name was related to digital solutions only, but I can understand maybe I was not clear enough about that specific fact.
I believe the big mistake in my case was to assume the assessor would associate the evidence, but it is too much information spread in the reference and mandatory criteria in different documents.

Thank you so much @Francisca_Chiedu !

1 Like

well you can clarify your assumptions in your appeal.

1 Like