The applicant has applied for Exceptional Talent with Mandatory Criteria (MC) & Optional Criteria (OC)1 & 2. Regarding the reference letters, per guidelines, referees should include their CVs with letters or other credentials that will meet the requirements of Tech Nation. In addition, please note that per guidelines, referees should know the applicant’s work in detail for 12 months or more. We are not convinced that this is the case for all the referees.
For MC, the applicants are required to show recognition in digital technology. The evidence here may include proof of having led the growth of a product-led digital company, product or team inside a digital tech company or proof such as showing evidence of recognition with nationally or internationally recognised prizes or awards for excellence specifically in the digital technology sector.
The applicant has submitted details of work done at three companies. This work does not show how the applicant has been recognised as a leading talent. The evidence here does not convincingly meet the required level for MC. MC is not rewarded.
For OC1, the applicants must show high levels of innovation in digital technology. Suppose the applicant is an employee working in a new digital field or concept. In that case, this must be clearly demonstrated, for example, by providing a patent application (the patent should include a verifiable ID on Google Patents). The applicant has submitted speaking engagements, salary confirmation, job offers, certifications and other recommendations. None of this evidence highlights what innovative work the applicant has done; there is no mention of a specific project or company that demonstrates the applicant’s innovative work. OC1 is not rewarded.
For OC2, the applicants must demonstrate proof of recognition for work beyond their occupation that contributes to the sector’s advancement. The applicant has submitted publications and community evidence. The community evidence is very light; the applicant has only been a member of Stack Overflow for three months and has only made two GitHub contributions in the last two years. Per guidelines, all contributions (for example, to an Open-Source project, GitHub, or Stack Overflow profile etc.) must demonstrate a consistent and ongoing track record of contributions to the sector. The evidence here is not at a convincing level for OC2. OC2 is not rewarded.
Note I submitted my referees LinkedIn profile ls and other credentials and all my referees stated that they knew me and my work for more than 12months
I did not include my referees CV on the reference letters as it would have surpassed the 3 sides of A4 paper
Also for work beyond my career, I made them understand that I moved from being a 3D product designer to a Devops Engineer within 5 years hence my light work on GitHub and stackoverflow thus I submitted my previous works as a product designer on Behance
They also didn’t even consider my 3 international publications
Finally I submitted proof of my employment letter and salary as well as other firms pouching me to join them as my proven track record evidence so I’m not quite sure of what they expect of me.
Hello,
Sad to know you were refused endorsement.
On submitting the CVs of your referees, it would make the reference document go beyond 3 pages but it doesn’t matter, so its fine to submit it.
Well, I thought so too, but as you can see, its not sufficient, I’m not sure the assessors have the time to click on too many links.
I included my referee CVs in my application, as advised by my coach.
The referee’s Linkedin profile can replace their CVs. But I think the response is saying the guideline in general, and you should consider the other details of their LinkedIn profile such as , if they know your detailed work, or they just know you, this could make a difference. And ensure that their LinkedIn profile should have sufficient details and publication as a digital tech leaders. The regular digital persona will not meet Tech nation 's criteria.
I think you still have a big gap to get the endorsement, meaning you will not be endorsed on the appeal. However to answer your question, you can appeal first, since you have doubt about this.
I don’t know your detail of your evidence, but you should try to understand it from the assessor 's comments. If you have the doubt, you can appeal that the first assessor is making the mistake by pointing out to your submitted evidence. This will help to provide valuable feedback in case you need to resubmit your next application.
However, for oc1 and oc2, based on the feedback, I think you have a big challenge, so appealing it may not pass through either unfortunately. Unless if you just need their free feedback, you can appeal and point out all of those you think you provided based on their feedback, so that you have a clear understanding of what improvements you need on the next application.
My mentor whom is a senior Devops at his firm whom knows all my works till date
My former CEO at my previous Devops job
My former CEO at my previous job as a 3D product designer at a UI/UX company
So for my MC I submitted;
My Devops input in my current firm of 10months
My previous input as a Devops Engineer with my previous employer of 1yr 3months
My works as a 3D product designer at a UI/UX firm.
For my OC1(Proven track record) I submitted;
1.My salary, employment letter and reference from my current employer
2.other references from my MSC and undergrad professors
3. My certifications in AWS and leadership certs
4. Job offers done other firms and individuals
For my OC2(Beyond occupation) I submitted;
1.My Two international publications on technology
2. My 3 months stack overflow contribution and My 2 years GitHub
3. My Behance contributions on UI/UX
I think for your OC1, not sure that would fly except if those docs has some form of explanation regarding how the products you mentioned in them are innovative, and the part you played. I guess the references can then help to confirm your input to the innovation(s).
OC1: I don’t see that your evidence shows that you have contributed to any project to the innovation. Reference of the employer is to support your evidence. Your undergrad professor certificates and job offers do not show any innovative work you have done at all.
OC2 is about helping other people to grow in the Digi-Tech field. Publication does not help to advance the digital tech sector. Did you contribute a lot to Github and/or stack overflow? What is Behance contribution?
Overall, I think you overestimate yourself or overestimate your own evidence toward the Global Talent Visa. You need to be exceptionally better than the other people, to be endorsed for the Global Talent visa. Can you explain why you think you are exceptionally better than persons in your similar role?
I think he chose the evidence based on the examples listed in the tech nation guide. I have observed that even though salary is lighted in three criteria, it is still not a very strong evidence, you need other evidence of recognition for the mandatory. For innovation, if you are not a founder or senior executive, it is difficult to prove unless you have evidence of working in new digital field or concept.
By and large, the bar is higher than what it used to be. Besides, there are too many people applying at this time, I can imagine they have to consider the quality of applicants’ evidence.