Hello, I applied for the TN Vias endorsement and got a rejection with the feedback below.
I see there are some misinterpretations that I seek to clarify. I would also like to know if I can change my application from an Exceptional Talent to an Exceptional Promise. How do I request a review? Would it be on my application or by merely responding to the mail I received?
I have been a Product Manager, building and managing digital payment products in a bank in Nigeria, and at the moment, I am working as a product manager on digital payment products in a ban in the UK.
Assessment panel feedback:
The applicant has applied for Exceptional Talent based on Optional Criteria 2 and Optional Criteria 3.
The applicant has provided several letters of recommendation. Many of them refer to the work done
when he was employed at XXtBank Nigeria between 2009-2018. Most of them discuss his work
between 2009-2014. Based on the Tech Nation guidelines, this is beyond the 5-year limit for evidence.
(While I started working on the platform between 2010 - 2018, the work referred to were done in 2017 and 2018, but the assessor simply referred to the aspects done before that time. -
How do I point these out?
These letters simply summarise his accomplishments all of which are standard activities of a product
manager. None of the letters explain why the applicant is exceptional. - This speaks to deploying digital payment solutions in 6 African countries where the bank had subsidiaries.
He has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he is a leading talent in the digital
technology sector having had national or international recognition within the last 5 years. He has not
been endorsed by individuals who themselves would be considered as an exceptional talent. He has
not been a keynote speaker at any significant fintech conference; he has not received any awards or
prizes and he has not been quoted as an expert in any significant fintech publication. The applicant has provided some evidence of speaking engagements - however upon further research, those speaking engagements when posted on social media did not illicit the response one would typify with a leader of their field. For example, the speaking engagement “Transition to Tech” only has one comment on LinkedIn - and that comment is from the candidate himself.
The applicant has provided details of a high salary twice the national average of Nigeria. However, they were compensated by a UK-based organisation as a consultant. - I am not sure where this information was obtained because I have not worked as a consultant. However, there is feature on LinkedIn that displays skills and services you can provide and activating that feature displayed me as a consultant. I have since disabled this feature.
As such, the compensation comparison is not valid. Currently, he is working for NatWest Bank as a product manager. His salary is not significant, especially when compared with the salaries of product managers working for major fintech companies in the UK. -
Optional Criteria 2 requires the applicant to provide proof of recognition for work outside their immediate occupation that has contributed to the advancement of the sector—specifically, they need to provide evidence that they have gone beyond their day-to-day profession to engage in an activity that
contributes to the advancement of the sector. The applicant provided various pieces of evidence to
support this criteria. Although he has mentored various individuals, none of his mentoring has been
done as part of an organised and structured programme; a lot of his mentoring has been either ad hoc
or mentoring that is available online to potential product managers. This does not meet the mentoring
requirements as noted in Tech Nation guidance.
The applicant has spoken at events and workshops, but these workshops were undertaken as part of his occupation—for example, the workshops cited occurred while he was working at YYY Bank. He has not shown how he has been recognised over an extended period and he has not shown how he has advanced the sector.
Optional Criteria 3 requires the applicant to have made significant technical, commercial, or
entrepreneurial contributions to the field as a founder or employee of a product-led digital technology
company. Most of the applicant’s career has been with FirstBank of Nigeria. This is a financial institution and not a product-led digital technology as per the Tech Nation definition. His work in the UK has largely been done as a contractor and does not qualify. XY Bank is also not a product-led digital
technology company. Notwithstanding this, his work at NatWest modernising SWIFT messaging
infrastructure is not a significant contribution; it does not advance the digital technology field.
It should also be noted there are signs of templating and replication between supplied references. For
example, the letter from the HR department of YYY Bank contains sections that are exactly the same -
as the letter from DDD Technologies. - These were various references for the same work done in the same organisation.
Additionally, any reference where the referee’s signature has
been copy/pasted as an image (such as those letters used to validate the candidate’s mentoring) are
not taken into consideration as their authenticity may be compromised.
The applicant has not provided sufficient or compelling evidence to meet all the criteria and cannot be
endorsed for this visa.
How do I make updates to my application? What are the next steps?