I got a rejection for EP. Need advise

Stage 1
1

Hello.
Please I recently applied for the Global Talent Visa under the Exceptional Promise route and, unfortunately, my application was not endorsed. I would greatly appreciate any advice or insights on my application please.

Attached are my application summary and the feedback I received. Any guidance on how to strengthen my appeal would be immensely helpful. @Francisca_Chiedu @Fisayo_Obilaja @alexnk

rep
rep1125Ă—1139 254 KB

APPLICATION SUMMARY

LOR

Recommender 1:
A seasoned expert with over 12 years in the digital technology sector. They have been endorsed as a Global Talent and have knowledge of both my professional work and contributions outside of work. We have collaborated on several initiatives, and they’ve known me for over a year.

Recommender 2:
An industry leader and founder of a robotics company. We collaborated on a published article, and they became familiar with my work through some of my previous publications. They have deep insights into my contributions and impact in the tech field.

Recommender 3:
A C-level executive with 15 years of experience in strategy and the digital technology sector. They were my senior leader when I worked at a tech-driven real estate company and are currently the head of strategy at a fintech company. Their extensive experience in digital tech allows them to speak directly to my work.

MC

Mandatory Criteria 1: Leading Marketing at a Proptech Company- ProductA

I led the marketing strategy for a leading proptech company, driving user acquisition, product growth, and revenue. My work included innovative digital marketing approaches that significantly increased the platform’s visibility and engagement. Evidence included 7 screenshots of the web platform dashboard, the strategy framework and some of the campaigns ran. Links included were media coverages from leading organizations highlighting the success achieved through the innovative campaigns at the company.

Mandatory Criteria 2: Leading Marketing for 2 Digital Products in Real Estate Technology- Product B

I was responsible for managing marketing efforts for two major digital products in the real estate and facility management sector. My contributions helped scale both platforms, increasing user engagement, driving retention, and ensuring commercial success through targeted marketing strategies. Evidence included screenshots of the web platform dashboard, the strategy framework, some of the campaigns ran, the google analytics metric page, the company monthly performance review doc. Links included were respectable media outlets speaking about the achievements of the product.

Mandatory Criteria 3: Co-founding and Growing a Non-profit Tech Community

I co-founded a non-profit community for tech professionals, which now has comprehensively over 1,000 members. Included screenshot of legal doc that says i am a co-founder, community interactions and positive feedback, community initiatives (webinars with notable individuals) and links to 2 national dailies that highlights the community fostering collaboration in the sector.

Mandatory Criteria 4: Evidence of High Salary

I have earned a competitive salary, reflecting my leadership position and value within the tech industry. Evidence included contracts screenshot and payslips.

OP1: (the innovation criteria)

  • Proof of Product in Market (Product A): Evidence that I introduced an innovative solution of friends and family crowdfunding in the product features. Evidence included the screenshots of product design brief, the web landing page, the innovative feature on the web platform, the user journey roadmap, record of revenue, the faqs i did on the platform that impacted adoption, testimonials and website dashboard.
  • Letter of Recommendation from CEO of Product A
  • Proof of Product in Market (Product B): Evidence through my leadership in developing and successfully launching key product enhancements. Included user interface of the 2 products, subscriptions, back-end customer success through sales conversion record, revenue record and testimonials and links about the product and its achievement in media outlets.

OP2: (outside of work)

  • Evidence of Out-of-Work Activities: Evidence relates to mentorship through webinars, adplist, thought leadership activities- such as articles and media recognition. I was recognised as one of the Top 100 marketing influencers by Technology for Marketing and nominated as among 40 women in tech by a tech association.
  • Letter of Recommendation from a Head of Marketing in a fintech startup that has known my work for 5 years (he is like a mentor), talked about both my work and out of work activities.

Some of the references and my CV also talked about my recognition for an innovative use of AI from my university in the UK.

2

To be honest, I dont think appealing will help you to get endorsed. You can only try to appeal for some of the evidence that you are in doubt, such as MC 1,2 (leadership", MC3 “salary”,

OC1, you spoke about “innovation solution/feature”, it is not what Tech Nation expects. It needs to be “innovative product”. If you think it is innovative and match OC requirements, you can try to appeal.

OC2. How was you recognized as one of the top 100 marketing influencers? May I suggest you to move this to your MC in your next application?

You are relying too much on LORs. I suggest you to bring out more evidence, then you can use LOR to back them up, to avoid being called “self-authored”

All in all, you will still need to start a new application, and perhaps in the meanwhile you can build up more profiles and evidences.

I hope this helps @Khad

2 Likes
3

Hi @Khad sorry about the outcome!

Agree with @alexnk - I would also add that you need to reposition the narrative of your work & application a bit.

Eg. Like TN has highlighted, the LORs work relationship with you looks like positioned as working on few initiatives or articles: which is not strong enough.

A document filled of screenshots like a collage doesn’t cut it unless you really give context and define what is the significance of each and how it relates to meeting the criteria.

OC1 is about innovation supplemented by external evidences and not just internal. From the feedback it looks like you did not position it as a valuable feature with significant impact at all. I had a feature innovation in my application but I showed associated scale of impact and my significant role in it.

Your application is a lot about quality of content and positioning. If you think you do have compelling work to prove criteria and structuring is the issue, I would recommend doing a new application. Appeal is free and imo everyone should go for it! If not anything, you will get more relevant feedback and might even clear a couple of criteria.

Good luck!

1 Like
4

Thank you for your feedback on my application @alexnk I truly appreciate your honesty and constructive insights. I understand where you’re coming from, and I want to clarify a few things regarding the points you raised:

  1. Mandatory Criteria (MC1, MC2, and MC3): I do recognize that the evidence around leadership and salary can be strengthened, but I believe there’s already enough context and third-party validation to support these claims. For example, MC1 and MC2 included media coverage links and performance metrics through screenshots that were embedded in the documents, not just self-authored content. I plan to clarify these in my appeal by emphasizing how my leadership led to tangible growth in the digital products I worked on.
  2. Innovation in OC1: You’re right that Tech Nation expects evidence of innovative products, but I’d like to clarify that the Feature was the first of its kind in the Nigerian market, addressing a key financial barrier and combining fintech with real estate solutions. This was not just a minor feature, but a new approach that drove user adoption and solved a critical problem in the space. I will make sure to provide a clearer narrative around how this feature was a product innovation that disrupted the market.
  3. Top 100 Marketing Influencers for OC2: Regarding my recognition as one of the Top 100 Marketing Influencers, I’ve considered your suggestion about moving this to the Mandatory Criteria (MC). I’ll definitely explore that further, but for now, it serves as external recognition for my contributions and leadership in the marketing and tech space. I’ll also explain more clearly how this recognition ties directly into my broader impact in the sector.
  4. Reliance on LORs: I understand your point about relying too much on Letters of Recommendation (LORs). However, these letters were meant to complement the evidence provided, not stand alone. They were supported by concrete documentation, including campaign reports, product analytics, and links to media coverage to support claims. My appeal will focus on clarifying this balance to show that I’m not over-relying on LORs but using them to validate and corroborate the evidence I’ve submitted.
  5. Starting a New Application vs. Appeal: While I agree that improving my profile further is always a good approach, I believe that an appeal is worth pursuing in this case. There are key pieces of evidence that may have been misunderstood or underappreciated, and I want to ensure they are considered properly before starting fresh. If the appeal isn’t successful, then I will certainly use this time to refine and strengthen my evidence for a new application.
1 Like
5

Thank you so much for your insight and support @pahuja I completely agree with your points, especially regarding the need to refine how I’ve positioned the narrative of my work and the significance of each piece of evidence. I can see now that some of the details in my Letters of Recommendation (LORs) could have been stronger in terms of highlighting the depth and impact of my work relationships.

As for the evidence, I appreciate the note about giving more context for the screenshots and connecting them more clearly to the criteria. I had ensured each piece of evidence were tied more explicitly to the significance of my role and the broader impact of my work and connected each screenshot in this sequence then included external links to published posts on reputable media outlets about the products and claimed impact.

Regarding OC1, I can see how my innovation might not have been framed to fully showcase its external impact, as you mentioned. While I included significant internal evidence, I understand that Tech Nation is looking for more external validation and measurable results that clearly show how the feature I developed was innovative and impactful at scale. I will definitely focus on better aligning this in future submissions.

I do believe the core of my work is compelling and meets the criteria, so restructuring the narrative and providing clearer, more context-driven evidence will be key. As you and @alexnk have mentioned, an appeal could be an opportunity to get more specific feedback and potentially clear one or two criteria. I’m definitely considering it, and your advice has given me a clearer direction for how to approach it.

1 Like
6

Good luck @Khad ! If you have confidence in your evidence, go for a new application with a much stronger direction.

1 Like