Help Understanding Rejection Decision & Appeal Strategy(Promise category))

Hi Everyone,

I just received a rejection for my Global Talent Visa (Exceptional Promise) application, and I would appreciate your insights on how to address the concerns in my appeal. Below are the key issues I’d like clarification on:

1. Mandatory Criteria (MC) – Android Engineering Not Considered Niche or Advanced
Tech Nation argued that my Android Engineering experience is not niche or specifically advanced, despite the fact that:

Mobile App Engineering is explicitly listed as a qualifying occupation.

I have secured a job offer in the UK with a significant salary increase, which shows industry recognition.

How can I strengthen my argument that Android Engineering should be considered under Mobile App Engineering, and that my work in cross-platform technologies qualifies as niche?

2. Unacknowledged Accelerator Selection & Grant (Both UK based)

I was accepted to 2 competitive accelerators with my startup, of which some their graduates joined Y Combinator and Techstars later on. Only one accelerator recognition was acknowledged in making my decision. The other attractive benefit is a grant for innovation in EdTech which had not been considered.
Has someone ever appealed, and won, based on overlooked accelerator recognition and funding? How should I frame the argument so that Tech Nation takes these points into account?

3. Unacknowledged UK Job Offer
I have been offered a job by a UK-based tech company with a pay increase of over 47% and, hence, an indicator of industry demand for my skills. This, however, is not mentioned in the decision.

Would it help to include salary benchmarking data to highlight that my offer is competitive in the UK market?

4. Optional Criteria (OC) – Innovation & Impact Rejected Despite Industry Validation

It operates in a relatively emerging space of EdTech; other startups are raising tens of millions.
My work was recognized by two accelerators (only one was acknowledged), and my startup has secured credits/grants with major tech giant platforms.
Despite pre-launch traction-waitlist sign-ups, funding, and partnerships, Tech Nation argued that “too little impact” was the case to give an OC3.

5 . Optional Criteria 2 (OC2) has Met, but GitHub Work Was Dismissed - Their original repos and work on GitHub is not compelling. While we acknowledge they are moderately active, there is a lack of stars or forks of their work which would signal adoption from the wider community. However, their Stack Overflow stats are considered. And their Medium track record is also considered. Their Techskill evidence confidently validates they have been integral to the advancement of a technology field. OC2 is met.

6. Unacknowledged Selection for Free Stall at a Major Tech Event(UK based)

I was selected to receive a free stall at a well-known international tech event focused on digital innovation, where my startup was featured alongside major tech companies. However, this recognition was not mentioned in my decision.

  • The event had 1,500+ attendees and is considered a leading industry event.
  • Only 5 of startups were selected for free stalls out of 60 applications, and I was one of them, proving industry validation.
  • My startup’s stall was located next to companies like Google and Amazon, reinforcing its credibility.

For those who included participation in high-profile tech events in their applications, how did you ensure it was recognized as significant industry validation?

7. Contradiction in Innovation Assessment (OC1 – Innovation as a Founder)

There seems to be an inconsistency in the decision. Tech Nation rejected OC1 (Innovation as a Founder), stating:

“Innovation as a founder of a product-led digital technology company or as an employee working on a new digital field or concept – No.”

However, they also stated:

“Their blogs and articles do suggest the candidate is creating tech in an interesting space – faith-based learning is a growing field.”

If Tech Nation acknowledges that I am creating technology in an emerging sector, how can they also reject my work as not innovative?

I plan to appeal, but I’d really appreciate any advice from those who have gone through this process successfully. If anyone has experience addressing similar rejection points, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Assessment Panel Feedback (Paraphrased)

The candidate has applied for the Global Talent Visa (GTV) under the Exceptional Promise (EP) pathway.

Mandatory Criteria (MC):

The panel acknowledges that the candidate has extensive experience in Android engineering, but states that while this is a valuable skill, it is neither niche nor particularly advanced.

The candidate’s role as a co-founder of an EdTech startup is recognized, but the panel could not draw any recognition-based conclusions from it. Similarly, their contributions to a charity website were appreciated, but there was no evidence that this work resulted in significant national or international acclaim.

The panel notes that the candidate’s articles and blog posts indicate their involvement in a growing sector—faith-based digital education. However, they argue that these writings do not provide proof of national or international recognition.

The candidate’s acceptance into Accelerator 1 is acknowledged, but the panel considers this to be a pay-to-play program and states that it does not demonstrate significant industry acclaim. ------(This is factually incorrect, its not pay to play, i can prove that)

Optional Criteria 2 (OC2) – Met:

The panel reviewed the candidate’s GitHub contributions but found them not compelling, citing a lack of stars or forks as indicators of wider adoption. However, they acknowledge the candidate’s Stack Overflow contributions and Medium publications as evidence of technical expertise. The TechSkill certification further validates that the candidate has made meaningful contributions to the advancement of a technology field. As a result, OC2 is met.

Optional Criteria 3 (OC3) – Not Met:

The panel reviewed the candidate’s revamp of a digital product in the health and fitness sector but noted that the app had low reviews and download statistics, leading them to conclude that the revamp did not demonstrate significant impact.

Additionally, the development of a waitlist for their EdTech startup was recognized as a smart strategy, but at this stage, the panel felt that there was insufficient evidence of traction or impact to justify awarding OC3. As a result, OC3 is not met.

Final Decision:

Based on the above evaluation, the application was not endorsed.

@Francisca_Chiedu

Hi could you please have a look and give me a feedback :blush:

Thanks